Hansard, 1961-11-24

There is a business motion in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister seeking that this Assembly do sit on Saturday and Sunday, that is, tomorrow and the day after. As insufficient notice was given of the motion, before the Deputy Prime Minister can move, he would require my consent and the general assent of Members present. If it is the general assent of Members present that the motion should be moved, then, of course, I will give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved? Some hon. Members: No.

The motion cannot be moved.

So be it.

2.32 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [21st November, 1961] to Question [20th November, 1961]. 'That, whereas it has always been the avowed objective of all nationalists of Malaya to achieve the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya and to remove the artificial division created by the British by their policy of "divide and rule", 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 Ayer), 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 he left out, be left out." 2.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P., which was once trusted by the people, has now turned the spears against the people. It threatens the people that they must accept the phoney merger proposed by the P.A.P., otherwise, the water supply will be cut off. They must not accept the true merger proposed by the Barisan Sosialis (this is what they say, Sir), otherwise, they will be disenfranchised. Sir, how threatening the words are. The P.A.P. leaders told the Party workers during the Anson by-election that there was no necessity for the Leftists to help the Party in Anson. They then told the people of Anson that if the P.A.P. was defeated in Anson, the Government would consider whether or not to stay in office. Owing to their refusal to rectify their past mistakes and owing to their refusal to unite with the Left-wing forces, the Party was defeated. The merger issue became a major item of open debate in the Anson by-election and the defeat of the P.A.P. in Anson clearly showed that the people had no faith in the P.A.P. The people rejected the phoney merger proposed by the PAP. Government. After this defeat of the P.A.P. in Anson, the P.A.P. leaders went wild like wild beasts. They ran to Malaya to consult the Tunku to cure their injury. They are supposed to be injured by the so-called Communists, Sir. They told the Tunku that they were injured by the so-called Communists and they also warned the Tunku that if he did not watch out, he would also be injured. Sir, the policy speech states that, "this dead-end is favoured by some, because they are afraid to leave security in the hands of the Central Government of a new and larger Federation." Sir, what does it mean? What does it intend to tell the people? It means that the Leftists in Singapore are opposing merger. That is not true. It intends to tell the people that merger is good for them, but the Leftists are opposing it because they are afraid of being arrested by the Central Government once merger has taken place. That is also not true. What a despicable attempt to smear the Leftists! Why do I say that, Sir? Because these Leftists had been arrested once or twice during the colonial regime, during the period that was most dangerous to them. Sir, you can ask our Ministers opposite, where were they then? In their warm beds, I think. Who were arrested? The P.A.P. ruling clique also said that we liked the British because we fought only for full internal self-government and not merger. My answer is this. The British come from a place outside Singapore. So is the Federation, a country that is outside Singapore. From these two, we will oppose anyone who tries to exploit us - the British and Malaya too. If the P.A.P. ruling clique purposely say that we do not want the phoney merger proposed by the P.A.P., and we are therefore anti-nationals, then I would like to inform them that we are not anti-nationals, we are anti-violence. Violence is always created by Right-wing people and colonialists. The atrocious act of Portugal in Angola, Tshombe in the Congo and the French in Algeria are clear instances. If the Government tries to sell the interests of the people, then the people will have no choice but to put the Government down before they do something to the British. The Government of Singapore said that merger between Singapore and the Federation was for rapid economic expansion and industrialisation that would bring more factories and more jobs for thousands of our young men leaving our schools and seeking employment. But the Government of Malaya said that merger between Singapore and Malaya was decided because of the fear that the Communists would turn Singapore into a base of operation against Malaya. Sir, from here, we can see that the Federation Government is not interested in the so-called merger proposed by the P.A.P. Government. What she is interested in is the internal security of Singapore, which the P.A.P. Government promised to hand over to the Federation Government. This means that the status of Singapore will remain as it is; and even worse, Singapore will remain as a self-governing State with its defence, internal security and foreign affairs transferred from the British colonial government to the Malayan Right-wing Government. The Government says that Singapore will seek independence through merger under conditions which will give Singapore autonomy in education and labour. Sir, this proposal is unworkable and the P.A.P. leaders know it. Singapore cannot have autonomy in education and labour if internal security is in the hands of the Federation, because the Federation will use the internal security power to interfere with the education and labour policies in Singapore. Sir, I am not going to elaborate any more details about how the Federation Government is going to interfere, but I can show you the case of Mr Lim Lian Geok, an educationist whose citizenship is - Mr David Marshall (Anson) rose -

On a point of order?

Yes. I have personal knowledge of the fact that the case of Mr Lim Lian Geok is before the Federation Court of Appeal, and I would ask you, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether it is proper, either according to our Standing Orders or according to the normal courtesies of Comity of nations, to mention in the Assembly a matter that is sub judice.

If the matter is, in fact, .sub judice then, of course, it cannot be mentioned in the Assembly. I accept the information given by the Member for Anson that the matter is, in fact, sub judice, and, therefore, it cannot be mentioned in the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw what I have said just now. Apart from this, will the Government in the Federation keep quiet when it sees that the Singapore education policy and labour movement are advancing to such an extent that they become entirely different from those of the Federation Government? Sir, she will not keep quiet. Will the Government in the Federation cry for a change of our education and labour policies when she does not like our ways of implementing the policies? Sir, the Federation Government will cry for a change. Due to the present education policy of the Federation, will the Chinese school students in the Federation swarm into Singapore for secondary education? They will come and Singapore cannot stop them because it is "part of Malaya". If this happens, will the Federation Government grant financial aid to Singapore for education? Can the students educated in Singapore seek employment in the Federation? Sir, the Tunku said at the U.M.N.O. General Assembly on 4th of November this year that merger was decided for fear of Communist activities in Singapore. Therefore, we can see from here that the Government of the Federation is not interested in economic expansion or the employment of our young men after leaving school in Singapore. Sir, you can go and read the 12 fairy tales written by our Prime Minister and which were broadcast over Radio Singapore last month. You will see how the Prime Minister of Singapore plans for the Government of the Federation to lay hands on persons whom the Prime Minister does not like. He does it secretly and openly by telling the names of the so-called Communists to the Malayan Government for future action. He also plans for the Government of the Federation to interfere in the education and labour policies by saying that the communists have infiltrated into Chinese secondary schools, trade unions, cultural organisations, etc. Sir, it is a plot to sell the people and to save the ruling clique of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Party Chairman has given a very lengthy speech about the question of citizenship and merger, but it is very regrettable that citizenship, which is so important and which is the fundamental right of the people, was not broadcast over Radio Singapore to enable our people to know what has happened in this Assembly. The P.A.P. has now turned Radio Singapore into Radio P.A.P.

Hear, hear!

The 15-minute speech delivered by the Minister for Labour took about 30 minutes over Radio Singapore, but the 450-minute speech delivered by our Party Chairman took less than five minutes over Radio Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think you will remember that a few years back the Chinese Chamber of Commerce fought so hard for citizenship rights for those who were not born in Singapore, and due to the effort and energy of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce particularly, and the support of the people generally, the colonial Government gave citizenship rights to the people of Singapore - those who were born outside the colony. Now many people have acquired citizenship rights and, of course, they are very happy and proud - happy because they have a say in their welfare in the Assembly and proud because they have the right to vote persons to form their own government. Now the effort of the people is to be sold to the Federation by the P.A.P. ruling clique. This citizenship right which they had fought to obtain is now to be deprived -

Read your White Paper.

- as a result of the P.A.P. type of merger. Yes, White Paper - the P.A.P. White Paper! Their happiness is now turned into sorrow and their pride is no more. Their love for the P.A.P. has now turned into anger. That is why the P.A.P. leaders dare not go to meet the people and yet they say that they represent the people. But they need bodyguards when they go and see them! The P.A.P. says that in the complete merger proposed by the Barisan Sosialis, Singapore would be entitled to have 14 or 15 seats in the Central Government and that half of the Singapore citizens would be disenfranchised. This means that half of the people who are citizens born in Singapore will automatically become citizens of the Federation. This also means that these people will have the right to vote and be voted to the Central Government in the Federation. We can call this an incomplete merger. This is what the P.A.P. says. But our Barisan Sosialis stand is that all Singapore citizens - about 620,000 - must become Federal citizens automatically on Merger Day. Let us come to the P.A.P. merger. They said that all citizens of Singapore would not lose their citizenship rights or be disenfranchised with the P.A.P. brand of merger. But as you will see at page 4 of the Memorandum on merger, all Singapore citizens will only vote in Singapore and elect their representatives in Singapore to the Central Government. Sir, to put the position more clearly to the people, I shall set out my arguments in a mathematical way: (a) In the phoney merger of the P.A.P., we will get -

Order. I did promise not to intervene for irrelevancies, but I think this type of irrelevancy must not be allowed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leadership believe in having a good time. Like their colonial predecessors, they like to hold on to power., otherwise they would be deprived of their status in life. The people of Asia and Africa are in revolt against this mentality. What do the ruling class do? What do they care? They do not care. If you ask the ruling class about this - An hon. Member: Who are the ruling class?

The P.A.P. ruling class! If you ask the ruling class about this, they will answer in this manner, "Never mind, let the poor people be the poor people, and they can go and die. Anyway, it is a free and democratic country and if they want to, they can try to rule us. They have the right to do so." This is what the ruling class will answer. Sir, such a feature is very common in those countries where the people are now trying to overthrow the ruling class. And this ruling class have never thought that the people will rise one day to revolt against them. That is why many countries and many governments have been overthrown. Having experienced that, the ruling class are becoming more fierce, ruthless and merciless. They blame the people for creating violence. Some people misunderstand and say that it is the people who create violence because they use force against the so-called Government. Who creates violence? Surely it is the ruling class. When an incident takes place, we must first find out the cause. Violence is not necessarily due to those who are involved in it. Often enough, it is due to the repression that comes from the ruling class. If the Government is good, no one will fight against it. Instead the people will support it. That is why the people will not support the P.A.P. - the P.A.P. is no good. It is because the Government uses force to suppress the people and makes them suffer so much that they have no alternative but to go against the Government. What I have said above can also be applied to strikes and other matters. As in the case of merger, the P.A.P. is seeking to bring about a situation of greater repression. There are two ways by which we can overthrow a government. One is by peaceful means and the other is by force of arms.

Order. I am afraid I am compelled to intervene in this type of speech which seems to me to be au electioneering speech. It has gone very, very far away from the motion. I think perhaps I could warn Members that if they go too far away from the motion they must expect interventions from the Chair. I think this type of speech has gone much too far away from the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the people want the Government to return their mandate. The P.A.P. refuses. It therefore quickly brings up the merger issue and threatens the people by talking about imaginary consequences that will happen if merger does not take place. As I said above, the phoney merger of the P.A.P. is an attempt to enable the ruling class to control the people's thinking, to exploit them and to rule for a further period. The merger issue is of such vital importance that it affects everyone living in Singapore, but the P.A.P. which came into power with the support of the people does not consult them on this merger issue. Instead it tries to threaten the people and prepares to impose its own type of merger. We accuse the P.A.P. of not consulting the people. The leaders of the P.A.P. said that they would put the matter before the people after the Prime Ministers of the Federation and Singapore have settled the details on merger. Sir, this is not, the correct way of going about the matter. Merger is a national matter and concerns everyone. It is not a .party matter. The Government should have consulted the people before making any decision. It should put the matter for open debates and discussions. It should ask the trade unionists, education bodies, cultural bodies, student organisations, rural organisations, professional men and others to submit their views and make suggestions. But the P.A.P. has not done so. This is the first great mistake the P.A.P. has made. The Legislative Assembly is a place where representatives of the people discuss matters which concern the country and the people. On the merger question, the Government should have first sought the opinion and support of the Assembly before it discussed the matter with the Tunku. The Government has not done that. Before the Tunku led the merger mission to England to discuss the Malaysia plan, he received overwhelming support from the Federal Assembly, but the P.A.P. did not ask for support from the Assembly before it went to meet the Tunku on the merger issue. This is the second great mistake the P.A.P. made. The P.A.P. Government, without consulting anyone, secretly tried to transfer all powers, privileges, rights and interests of the people of Singapore to the Federation Government. This is the third great mistake done by the P.A.P., and it is a treacherous act of the P.A.P. in trying to sell out Singapore.

That is right.

Years ago in China, Sir, there was a General called Wu San Kwei. For his own selfish ends, he allowed the Manchurians to conquer China, and the P.A.P. is doing that. An hon. Member: Doing what?

Ask yourself. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the hon. Member for Cairnhill is aware that if the P.A.P. is defeated on the merger question, the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. will be thrown into the drain to be washed away by the people, and because the hon. Member is afraid that his Party, the S.P.A., may vanish with the P.A.P., he is forced to oppose our amendment. An hon. Member: What about ourselves?

The same. They are all the same, Sir, and he also criticised the P.A.P. brand of merger because he knew that if he supported it, his Party, the S.P.A., would be in the dead camp of the P.A.P. If we study carefully what the hon. Member for Cairnhill has said, we will be able to find out that what he has uttered is also very much the same as that uttered by the P.A.P. leaders, both inside the Assembly. In conclusion. Sir, the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. are sitting on the same side as that -

Opposite side.

Same side - the thinking is the same, Sir. It is a regret that a non-communal Party like the P.A.P., when discussing the importance of citizenship rights in this Assembly, has purposely tried to cast a shadow of communal fear over our Malay brothers both in Singapore and in the Federation. The duty of the Government in ruling a multi-racial country such as ours is to create harmony and unity among all races and not to create hatred and disunity among the races, but P.A.P. is now using this despicable method to create communal fear and to undo all the efforts which the people had put in in the past, to bring about unity to all races. I would like to remind the P.A.P. that if they want to leave a good record for the history of Singapore, then they must not attempt the sordid practice of creating communal fear. Sir, unity is strength. This formula can he applied to all things. It is good and wise for all peoples of all races to unite together to form a single group of people, hut this can only take place if the guardians or the leaders of the people treat them impartially. To guarantee that there is no conflict among the races, the leaders must not take the communal line. but must treat all people equally. Under the P.A.P. brand of merger. Singapore citizens share the same responsibility, but have no equal benefits, and it will only bring chaos and disunity to our country and our people. No one will benefit from it. The P.A.P. and even the ruling clique will suffer. It will be a total loss to our country. It is very interesting to see the P.A.P. leaders fighting the British colonialists with their voices in this Assembly, where there are no British colonialists. They blame the British for their divide-and-rule policy but this divide-and-rule policy has already been made. It is up to the Government to mobilise the strength of the people, to persuade and force the British colonialists to accept our demand. It is only with strength that the battle can be won, but can we see the Government doing that? We can see them only creating communal hatred, creating suspicion among the races, creating fears. We can see them begging the colonial forces, the Right-wing forces, to save the P.A.P. from being drowned. Sir, when a person is in danger of drowning, he will struggle desperately and dangerously. The P.A.P. is now struggling desperately and dangerously. Sir, the Member for Kreta Ayer has said something like that; that we, the Barisan Sosialis, do not have any plan as to how the merger should take place.

Order. May I know who the Member for Kreta Ayer is?

I am sorry. I mean the Minister for Finance. How the merger should take place and how the citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya.

Order. I thought I remarked that there is a difference between reading and referring to one's notes. I ask the Member for Changi not to make it so obvious that he is reading.

I would like to inform the Member on this merger issue. The Government has not sought the Opinion of the Opposition Parties. It is, therefore, the duty of the Government to draw up plans on this merger issue. If they want our detailed plans, the only way is for them to resign and face the people. This is the only solution. When the P.A.P. resigns, elections must, of course, be held and the Barisan Sosialis will be eager to explain clearly the meaning of merger and citizenship to the people. Let the people choose freely whether they want our Barisan Sosialis' merger, or they want the sell-out plans of the P.A.P. As I said just now. Sir, if the P.A.P. Government wants our plans of merger, it must call an All-Party Conference to discuss the matter, or the P.A.P. must resign. The Minister for Finance said that we were a group of angry young men. Yes, angry young men, angry because the P.A.P. traitors are trying to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore; angry because the P.A.P. leaders call themselves patriots, sincere democrats, nationalists, 100 per cent socialists, and yet they do things similar to those done by traitors. The Minister for Culture said that the Barisan Sosialis were afraid of merger for fear of getting into trouble when merger takes place. He indicated that the Barisan Sosialis leaders are afraid of being arrested by the Central Government. Sir, in a phoney merger, the sell-out has taken place. This type of utterance is meant to fool the people into believing that the Barisan Sosialis is selfish. I would like to inform the Member that his false statements cannot blind the people. The people will not believe him. The people may believe him if he had been sleeping in a hard bed in Changi Gaol. But he has never slept there; he has been sleeping in a warm soft bed in his own sweet and comfortable home.

Order. I am trying to avoid this type of language. These personalities should never creep in in a debate in this Chamber.

During the colonial regime our Barisan Sosialis leaders were thrown into gaol for years.

There was no Barisan Sosialis!

Yes, our Barisan Sosialis leader. An hon. Member: Where were you?

Sir, where was I? I was a student in Beatty Secondary School, and I did help the P.A.P. to contest the elections. Ask the Member for Tampines. I was a student. During the colonial regime our Barisan Sosialis leaders were thrown into gaol for years. They were put in gaol by the colonialists just because they fought for the interests of the people.

If it were not for the people, they would still be there!

Order.

The P.A.P. leaders then were in Cameron Highlands and Fraser's Hill. The Minister for Culture said that it was true that Singapore citizens could not go to the Federation to contest the elections: but it was equally true that Federation citizens cannot come to Singapore to contest the elections. Only fools believe such words. Federation citizens cannot come to Singapore to contest the elections, but they lose nothing. Instead they gain. They gain control over Singapore. Singapore citizens cannot go to the Federation to contest the elections, but they lose all the rights and privileges which they are now enjoying. He also said that Singapore citizens have the right to elect representatives to the Federal Parliament. But the Member must remember that the so-called citizens are only those who can speak English and the national language; only persons who can speak English and the national language have the right to be voted to sit in the Federal Parliament, Sir. An hon. Member: Change it!

We will try to change it.

The Barisan Sosialis can change it.

Yes, we can change it.

Order. Sometimes it is pleasant to hear a lady's voice. But perhaps the lady will contain herself.

Sir, what this indicates is that Singapore citizens will be deprived of their rights completely in one way or another. The people of Singapore have the right to vote but they have not the right to be voted because they are not English and Malay speaking. Sir, the Minister for Health and Law has quoted many words of law in order to misled the people. He was trying to tell the people that because of this law and that law, the people of Singapore could not become citizens of the Federation. Therefore, their demand for equality was illegal. This is because the law says so. This is what the Minister for Health and Law said. Sir, laws are made by men, and some laws are made by men to safeguard their own interests. And the P.A.P. leaders, who call themselves the mass leaders or self-appointed mass leaders, must discuss with and persuade the Malayan Government to make arrangements to allow Singapore into the Federation without any inequality and prejudices against the people of Singapore. The leaders of the P.A.P. say that we, the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen, are carrying out the instructions of the people behind us. I would like to inform them that the men behind us and giving us instructions are the majority of the people. If they do not believe this, the only way for them to prove it, is to go and face the people. That is the only way. I have brought the written instruction of the people into this Assembly, Sir. This instruction is written in the Constitution of the Barisan Sosialis. The Government says that those who are against the so-called merger proposed by the P.A.P. are anti-nationalists. In other words, the P.A.P. leaders are patriots and true nationalists. But they are certainly not. They are traitors and enemies of the true nationalists and patriots of Singapore and Malaya. They say that those who are against the phoney merger of the P.A.P. will be crushed. I say to them that those who attempt to sell the interests of the people will be crushed by the people. An hon. Member: Correct!

Order.

Sir, my strength is the people's strength, and the P.A.P.'s strength is only a few Ministers. The P.A.P. say that we are elected on the P.A.P. ticket. An hon. Member: Were you not?

Yes, it is right. We were elected by the people on the common objectives of the people. But we were not elected on the P.A.P. leaders' objectives. These objectives are written in clause 2 of the People's Action Party Constitution which reads - Sir, if you will permit me to read the objectives. An hon. Member: Do not be frightened.

Order. The Member is permitted to read if the paragraph is not too long. I do not know whether the Government side still know their objectives. Possibly the Barisan Sosialis would like to adopt them.

The P.A.P.'s objectives are also the same as the objectives of the Barisan Sosialis. And we are fighting for those objectives, Sir. They are not fighting for them. That is why [Interruptions].

Order. If the Member for Changi is not allowed to continue, we will never be able to finish with the debate. We have already taken four days.

These are the Constitution and Rules of the People's Action Party, clause 2: Party's objectives -

You are doing it now!

I do not know who will cut their own throats. An hon. Member: Cut yourself!

Order. I do not know whether I could accuse the Member for Changi of misleading the House, because he always turns round and brings up a whole sheaf of notes after he has finished one sheet. Mr Teo.

The Prime Minister and the other Members on the Government side thought that we dared not oppose their phoney merger. They thought that if we opposed we would be accused of being anti-nationalist or anti-merger. This is what they thought. If we did not oppose, then we would fall into their trap and they could laugh. Then we might cut our throats. But what they had hoped for did not appear. The P.A.P. always try to hide their own intentions and to deceive the people in order to enable them to rule longer and to exploit some more from the people. We in the Barisan Socialist have never tried to deceive the people. We will never do such a shameful act done by the P.A.P. We never hide our own intentions and objectives as stated in clause 2 of the Barisan Socialist Constitution. We never hide our own objectives towards merger and towards everything. The P.A.P. may think that we are like ostriches which always hide their faces in the sand when people want to catch them. Maybe the P.A.P. is adopting an ostrich policy. I do not know what they know of the ostrich policy. It is because of this that we oppose the phoney merger proposed by the self-appointed leaders of the P.A.P. We have now opposed the motion moved by the Minister for Labour, and we have to make an amendment to this motion. It is because of our amendment that the P.A.P. leaders could not sleep for the last few nights. Before our amendment was moved, they planned and they plotted on how to trick us and how to trap us for their own selfish ends. But now, to their regret, they have to change their tactics. They could not attack us from the direction which they had chosen before. Now they can attack us not with their own strength but with the strength of the colonial forces and the Right-wing forces both inside and outside the Assembly. Sir, the fundamental aim of the people is to struggle for a better society and a better standard of living. Nobody will allow our society to turn from bad to worse unless that person is a traitor, if not, a coward, fearing the strength of the people and bowing to colonial forces and reactionary forces. The fundamental right of the people is citizenship and the fundamental aim of the people is a better society. This fundamental right and fundamental aim of the people are closely related. Men are born equal. Nobody can deny that. If merger is to take place, the right of the people of the two territories must be equal. According to the Memorandum on merger on page 6, we will be able to see that all the rights, powers and privileges are transferred from the hands of Singapore to the hands of the Federation. All these rights, powers and privileges of the people of Singapore are to be lost and be sold by the P.A.P. But the status of the people of Singapore will remain in Singapore as it is, but with their rights, interests, and privileges deprived. Can this be called merger? All these rights, power and privileges are here for us to enjoy at this moment, but are ready to be sold, if Singapore citizens can become the citizens of a new larger Federation, enjoying the same rights, powers and privileges as those enjoyed by the Federation citizens, if merger takes place, then, of course, our State powers must be transferred to the Central Government, otherwise, there will be chaos for the two Governments having the same powers. But the trouble is that the so-called merger proposed by only the ruling clique of the P.A.P. is entirely different. The P.A.P. ruling clique proposed a merger where the rights, powers and privileges are to be handed to a person for nothing. Sir, we sell things and articles for money, and with this money we buy things and earn more money to feed ourselves. It is the same with merger, Sir. We are prepared to give the powers of our State to the Central Government if our citizens born or not born in Singapore can become automatically the citizens of a larger Federation and enjoying the same power and privileges as those enjoyed by the citizens of Malaya. Because the P.A.P. brand of merger is not a merger but a sell-out, therefore we oppose the motion -

Amendment.

The motion, Sir, moved by the Minister for Labour, and not the amendment. That is our Party's amendment, and not the P.A.P.'s amendment. If it is the P.A.P.'s amendment, we are sure to oppose it. I think the P.A.P. ruling clique must have known that the people do not want their merger, otherwise, there would not have been so many twists and turns on so many minor points, such as passports. Sir, a passport is not a very important point. Not all the people can go abroad to enjoy their holidays. It is only the Ministers and some millionaires -

Some Barisan Sosialis might need it, you know!

We will face our troubles in Singapore, but not the P.A.P. leaders. We fight on principle on the merger issue and we do not fight for those minor points. Maybe the P.A.P. leaders do not know that they are selling something for nothing at first -

$90 million!

Yes, $90 million. I do not know it is $90 million but they must know it now because we have already put down all reasonable arguments and facts for them to study; but to our regret, the P.A.P. leaders, after studying our reasonable arguments, still insist on their phoney merger. A person will have no voting rights and be voted to office, and he will also have no other privileges to enjoy the benefits of his motherland if he is not a citizen. Sir, our demand for automatic citizenship is basic and fundamental. I support the amendment of the Party. 3.33 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I oppose strongly the amendment moved by the Barisan Socialist. Mr Speaker, I personally am surprised at the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis who oppose the original motion moved by the Minister for Labour. The Members of Queenstown and Changi say that they are the elected representatives of the people but they must bear in mind that they were elected, not on the Barisan Sosialis ticket, but on the P.A.P. ticket. If they are really men, they must go out of this Assembly and face the people in the same constituencies to prove whether they have the support of the people or not. If they are successful, then it can be said that they are truly the elected representatives who support the Barisan Sosialis; otherwise they have no business to say that they are the representatives of the people. Mr Speaker, the Members for Queenstown and Changi also say that the future citizenship will be second-class citizenship. But what do they mean by second-class citizenship? Does it mean that a citizen of Singapore who lives in a certain area wishes to throw away his money for the purpose of voting in Malaya, or would he prefer to vote in his own constituency? Whereas, in point of fact, when merger is achieved, we will be able to send our representatives to the Federal Parliament. Cannot the electorate elect their own representatives to sit in the Federal Parliament? It is just the same. Why are they harping on the same citizenship rights for Malaya and Singapore? We know that in the past the electorate preferred to vote in their own constituencies for the sake of economy. Mr Speaker, this is only a tactic adopted by the Barisan Sosialis because they are more keen to stand as candidates in the Federation. But they conveniently forget that if we do not discharge our duties in our own constituency, people will not elect us in that constituency. I say that this opposition is most unreasonable and the result is that they are anti-merger. They also say that we the P.A.P. should not talk about merger. Why do they say that? Because they know that right from the beginning we the P.A.P. have desired merger and we have struggled for merger. Until we die we will not budge an inch. We will move forward to defend our motherland so that it will not be taken over by the Communists. Mr Speaker, I am surprised at the stand of the Barisan Sosialis who always put the blame on what has happened in the past two years on the Government, but they forget that over the past few months, before they left the Government, they were with us. Now, they have turned round and pecked at us. Is this the attitude of a man'? I think this is the attitude of a coward. They have no responsibility. The people have put their faith in us as their elected representatives and we must discharge our responsibilities to protect their interests in the constituency we represent. We must not think of one community, but the people as a whole, so that the people will be able to taste the fruits of their labour. It seems that they deliberately do not discharge their duties truly. Mr Speaker, they challenge the Government to resign because they say that the people no longer support the Government. But, Mr Speaker, the people know they have given us the power for a certain period and we are not so foolish as to resign until the time determined by the people so that we can go back to them for another election. Why must we be afraid to face another election? We are prepared to face an election when the time comes, and when that time comes we will see. God will be on the side of the people who are for truth. But let not the Barisan Sosialis think that they are always in the right. If they are really right-thinking people, they must not be afraid to face another election. Why should they speak in this strain which should not be uttered in this Assembly? The subject under debate is a very important issue and not one in which we can dabble. Mr Speaker, they have compared the situation in Singapore with what has happened in Angola and the Congo. But Mr Speaker, they have misunderstood matters. In Angola and the Congo, for instance, the population comprises only one people, but here in Singapore, we must remember that the society is multiracial and we cannot do anything without considering this fact. We must be careful in whatever we do so that we will not be sorry for our actions. I say so, Mr Speaker because if the people had no faith in the P.A.P., then we would not have won the elections in 1959. But we understand that it is because of agitation from certain sections who do not wish for peace but who wish for chaos that has led the people into being misled. But we hope the people of Singapore will use their discretion in the interests of harmony for the generation to come and not just for our own selfish ends. We must remember that this is one of our aims, otherwise we will be influenced by undesirable elements. Concerning the merger as described by them as good, they do not think of the implications of labour and education if we follow the Federation system, because we know that in Singapore here the Chinese are in the majority and who are not yet versed in the Malay language, if we adopt the Federation system in education the Chinese-educated will not be able to get jobs in Singapore. Will this not frustrate the people? We must remember that when we want to improve on something, it will take time. In the beginning it will be difficult because. Mr Speaker, when we were born we did not become lawyers or doctors automatically. It took years for our mothers to bring us up so that we will become useful citizens of the State. Similarly, on the job we are discharging. We must do it properly so that our generation will taste the benefit and we shall not think in terms of our own interests only. The Members for Queenstown and Changi also say that we the P.A.P. pay more interest to the Party. It is false. I repudiate this statement. But, Mr Speaker, those gentlemen themselves know how difficult it is. But because they are cowards and not sincere, they cannot face hardships. For that reason, they left the Government because they felt that the P.A.P. would collapse and if they toppled they would be thrown away. For that reason they formed a new Party to attack us. But we on the Government side will stand erect to discharge our duties to the very end. We will not budge; we will not retreat in the face of the agitation. We will be prepared to defend our motherland from dangerous influences which are the concern of the people of Singapore and Malaya. 3.45 p.m.

In case hon. Members have not understood what I am trying to do, I am trying to give a Member of the Opposition an opportunity to speak and then a Member on the Government side. Then I will come back to the Opposition. I am trying to divide time as best I can. The Barisan Sosialis have already had two speakers. Now it is U.M.N.O.'s turn.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, if I am not mistaken, today is the sixth day we are debating the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis to the motion of the Minister for Labour. It can be said that we are not tired of hearing the arguments put forward by Members of this Assembly. We must not forget that the matter under discussion will not only determine the fate of the Members of the Assembly but also the people of Singapore. As representatives of U.M.N.O., we would naturally like to express our thoughts from our point of view to our non-Malay brothers for them to consider. We will not be carried away by historical sentiments and emotions and try to dominate another community with a feeling of hatred. Our main objective is to direct U.M.N.O.'s struggle which is led by Tunku Abdul Rahman. There is no need for me to say here that the majority of Malays have great faith in the Tunku as a national leader. He has wholeheartedly helped the people of the Federation and, at the same time, he has not forgotten the people of Singapore. The position is this, Mr Speaker. Sir. The Tunku wishes that U.M.N.O. should have a branch in Singapore so that the objective of U.M.N.O. (Malaya) can be carried out in Singapore. To take one example, the people of the Federation of Malaya, comprising a multiracial community, have been able to live in peace and harmony. This is not something which I wish to bring up before Merdeka Day, but I would like to tell the Barisan Sosialis that if they are really sincere in their desire to live in a family as a result of a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, then they should not have moved their amendment. It is against our aim to unite the various people together into a strong and peaceful community. This has further aroused our suspicion because we know of the success achieved by the Tunku in his negotiations on the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. This is not the first time this matter has been put to the people. In fact, the merger issue was discussed fully in the Federal Parliament and the speeches made by the Tunku in October 1961 have appeared in the Straits Times. The Tunku's speeches were clear and it was easy to understand them. There were no twists and turns. But the Barisan Sosialis did not touch on the objectives or the aims of merger. There should be no further delay if we wish to unite the people of the two territories. The time has come to merge if we wish to prevent Singapore from turning Red. I say unhesitatingly that U.M.N.O. is an anti-Communist Party. This has been proved not by words but by deeds. For instance, during the emergency period in the Federation of Malaya, the youth of U.M.N.O. were prepared to defend their country against Communism if the Government was not able to do so. But the efforts of the elected representatives of the Federation of Malaya were successful and Communism has been smashed in Malaya. The Federation of Malaya is not keeping quiet in the meantime. It is keeping a watchful eye over those people who are sympathetic to Communism. I say courageously that the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis is a line of the Communists. I would not say that they are already Communists. It is a line which is adopted by the Communists in their struggle. I say so, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the Communists do not wish to see a free Singapore through a unification with Malaya. They cannot avert this reunification and they have no alternative but to pretend that they are also in favour of the building of one nation. Their true aim is not for merger but that Singapore should stand as an independent State so that they can align themselves with stronger powers according to their political inclinations. I think the long time taken by the Member for Queenstown - he made a record by speaking for 7� hours in this Assembly - to put forward his arguments could have been put to better use on constructive suggestions to the White Paper of the Government. This has added more poison in the minds of the people of Singapore with the object of frustrating the merger proposals. Why I say this is that we do not question the reasonableness or otherwise of these proposals. We must think in terms of time and we must act now. We must also ask whether the objectives of the Barisan Sosialis can be accepted by the Federation of Malaya. Although we do not like to recapitulate historical events, we would like to relate what happened in the Federation of Malaya. After the Japanese occupation, when the British administration returned to Malaya, the British Government sent over a mission headed by Sir MacMichael to amend the then existing Federation Agreement. At that time, we were not quite sure of the aim of the British Government. The Malays enjoyed sovereignty at that time. When the Agreement was signed by the rulers without prior consultation with the people and it was realised that the Agreement did not only hope to put an end to the Malay rulers but also Malay sovereignty, there was opposition, and activities were intensified to dissolve the Agreement. That was the process of political development until the Federation achieved independence. Singapore also made progress since the end of World War II. From a colonial' status, we moved on to a Constitution and then to a self-governing status today. From here, we will take a step further towards our aim of reunification with the Federation of Malaya. This seems also to be the aim of the Barisan Sosialis. So today with the progress we have achieved, Mr Speaker, I can say that communal feeling has almost gone. It can be said that there is now no communal fear. Communal fears have disappeared. We are able to live in peace and harmony, and we hope that in future we will be a State that sets an example. In fact, the Federation of Malaya has set an example to the world and has received warm tributes from other parts of the world to say how our multi-racial people can live in peace and harmony. So we must be very careful in this matter, because there are people who wish to create or revive communalism. In the past we used to say that the British were fond of doing this, but now we say that it is a new form of colonialism, i.e. Communism, which is even more dangerous than British colonialism. It is not because we are afraid of the Communists or that we have any dislike for their leaders, but their way of living is nothing but the oppression and suppression of people. In the circumstances, we cannot accept Communism. We want to live in a free country where there is freedom of expression. Although we are angry, we have given them freedom. We have given them 7� hours to speak because this is the place for any elected representative to put forward his views. But if their aim is to disseminate poison and to revive communalism, then we will not oppose merely with words but we have no alternative but to resort to anything to avoid this communal issue. U.M.N.O. oppose those extreme racial organisations formed by Malays, for instance, the A.R.T.I.S. which we heard about early this year. We oppose the A.R.T.I.S., but it does not follow that because they are Malays, we will tolerate such an organisation. We wish to nurse the efforts and progress so far achieved, and we wish to consolidate them. Therefore, we do not wish to see an irresponsible group of persons destroying our progress. So I sincerely hope that the elected representatives choose a way which will' really lead to the building of one nation. I do not adopt twist-and-turn tactics. We in Singapore must not try to bring arguments to defend ourselves but we must find a point of agreement where it can he acceptable to all. In that way alone will we he able to march forward towards peace and prosperity for all the people of Singapore. For example, Mr Speaker, when this House first met after the advent of the P.A.P. Government, we were always pointing out proposals that would be good for the people of Singapore. But in this matter we are not defending the P.A.P. by any means. What we stand for are the interests of the people. In our view, whatever is not good for the people must be rejected, and whatever is good we must support, otherwise our democracy will not be a healthy one. We should. I feel, give our congratulations to the Government at least for having seen one good way for the reunification of the peoples of these territories even though what they have been able to achieve so far is not what everybody else would wish, as what some would call "genuine merger". There are so many things synthetic these days, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is synthetic rubber, for instance. Likewise people too are synthetic in their attitude. Some people would make utterances which actually are the words of others. I say that some Parties send their representatives here merely to be puppets because they cannot choose for themselves and they have to be directed from behind by somebody. If they are truly genuine and want to carry out their responsibilities to the people, they should be able to speak what is in their own minds. We should he brave enough to face the people, although what we ourselves feel may not be agreeable to certain sections of the people. If we know that a thing is not good and yet we say it is good, that is not what is called true democracy. That sort of thing is undesirable for us here as well as in the Federation. I have no wish to reply point by point to the arguments put forward by the Barisan Sosialis, because most of these arguments are not only unacceptable to a sober mind but also that most of what the Members have been saying are no different from something that is undesirable. But I wish to touch on the point raised by a Member that Singapore he put under the aegis of the United Nations.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Inche Ahmad Jabri resumed his seat.

I am indebted to the hon. Member. He misrepresents me at the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir. My speech was directed very briefly to an alternative independence on which I shall he speaking later.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, although it appears to me that the hon. Member for Anson did not get my point, I say I respect the statements he made in this House. Although I do not like to debate that matter at length, nevertheless his proposal represents his own personal view. As for us, we feel that his views are different from ways which we ourselves would choose, because then we would be able to find a way to bring about something that will be in the interests and for the benefit of the people of Singapore. I would like to state here clearly, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this matter is one of national interest, and it is only right that everyone who has the national interest at heart should fight on national lines. We should give credit to the efforts made so far. And when we receive results from the efforts we have put in, we carry on our efforts so as to be acceptable to all the people we represent. If there are still doubts in our minds after that, then the question of Federal citizenship which we are now demanding is one which we should consider very carefully. We should not bring forward points which are not acceptable. What we must now do in Singapore - as we can see in the White Paper - is to achieve some form of merger. By this we will be able to assure the people of Singapore that there are no matters which could be of grave concern to them. The Government of the Federation of Malaya are really not having any fears about the Chinese people or the Barisan Sosialis. But they have a grave concern about the Communist influence. If this influence is absurd, then no problem arises. If the Malays in the Federation are afraid of being swamped by other people, then it means that they know that within 10 or 20 years their number would be more or less the same. But those who are not Malays in the Federation must be able to convince their Malay brothers that they can live together with them and stand shoulder to shoulder in peace and harmony, as was shown by them when they faced the emergency together. This is a matter of national pride to the people in the Federation. Because of what took place in 1948, where there was a big Communist armed movement, they have learnt a lesson. They cannot forget this, and, therefore, they have to be very careful all the time. They have to be on guard. If there had been no emergency then, it is possible that Singapore would have achieved Merdeka together with the Federation. But because of the emergency and because they know that Singapore is a big base for the Communist movement, the Federation of Malaya, after very carefully considering the question of giving Singapore independence, has kept it in abeyance. But in their heart of hearts, they do not wish to separate Singapore from the Federation forever. The people of the Federation have the interests of the people of Singapore at heart. The hon. Member for Changi, Mr Speaker, Sir, hurts my feelings even more - as a member of the same family in Singapore - when he says that the Federation is an alien country to Singapore. This kind of talk is rather ungrateful, because they came here with the assistance of the British. It was because the door of Singapore was thrown wide open that they were able to come here in great numbers. A good number of people who had the same view as he had were able to come. It is as though someone who is given the calf, demands the thigh and after that is given, he demands the head. Our stand, Mr Speaker, Sir, is clear. We must be wary in the matter of bringing about communal feelings or saying one community is strong and another is weak. What I say is based on facts. The points raised by the Malays, they say, are matters which are unreasonably brought up by the Malays. Matters concerning the rights of the Malays must be safeguarded. We cannot achieve the object of national reunification if the weaknesses of certain sections cannot be remedied. That can give rise to all sorts of conflict. So let us not dwell too much on that. As the Malay proverb goes, it is as though the duckling dies of thirst in the pond. So what has been achieved is really in our interests and to our mutual benefit.

4.25 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill has quite aptly stated that the debate on the motion for merger is one step in the constitutional progress of Singapore. In 1955, under the Rendel Constitution. there were 24 elected Members, of whom, I believe, there are about four old boys still sitting in this Chamber for the first time. The Member for Anson was at that time the Chief Minister of the Labour Front Government. During his term of office, he found that it was difficult to work under the limitations of the Rendel Constitution, as we had predicted. Therefore, the Member for Anson, then in his capacity as Chief Minister, led a delegation to London in April/May 1956 to seek a revision of the Constitution of Singapore. We were behind the Chief Minister then. Unfortunately, those talks collapsed and it ended in the isolation and resignation of Mr David Marshall as Chief Minister. Tun Lim Yew Hock took over the reins from Mr David Marshall. Once more in December 1956, approaches were again made to Whitehall for a new Constitution for Singapore. This second constitutional conference brought about changes, providing for internal self-government for Singapore. hut foreign affairs and defence remained in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. This is the Constitution under which we are operating today. During the tenure of office of Mr David Marshall and Tun Lim Yew Flock as Chief Minister, approaches were made to the Federation Government - Tunku Abdul Rahman then was head of the Federation Government - to solve the problem of the isolation of Singapore from the Federation. That this was SO has been confirmed by the Prime Minister of the Federation in his speech in Parliament on the 18th of October this year. The Federation Prime Minister said: "The subject of merger has not been brought up for the first time by the present Prime Minister of Singapore.' It was, in fact, brought up by different Chief Ministers who were in power be-bore Mr Lee Kuan Yew, like Tun Lim Yew Hock and. I may say. Mr David Marshall. Unfortunately, these approaches were rebuffed, in the words of the Member for Anson. May I quote him in Hansard No. 23, Volume 14, dated 2Oth/21st July, 1961, column 1710. This was what the Member for Anson said: Mr Speaker, we are all too conscious that for many years now the Government of Singapore has officially offered to the Federation merger as a constituent State unconditionally. I have disclosed that I made that offer in 1955. I know it was repeated again and again, Mr Speaker, up to about the middle of or early 1956. I have no doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it has been repeated since then. We have each been rebuffed, sometimes courteously, and sometimes even sharply, on the offer to merge as a State unconditionally. Yet it is suggested by the Prime Minister that Singapore can and will achieve merger with the Federation in 1963, with autonomy in education and labour legislation. I say to you, Sir, that that is a daydream which they know to he a day-dream. I do not know whether they expect the people to take it seriously, but they themselves cannot believe in it seriously. We have the hard reality that for six years now we have been refused any kind of opening of official conversations for a merger. For the last two years they have even refused a Common Market. In those circumstances, Sir, I say that it is the P.A.P. leadership that is making impossible conditions leading to the impossibility of merger.' An hon. Member: We all heard that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today, proposals for merger with Singapore retaining autonomy in the fields of labour and education have now been agreed to by the Government of the Federation of Malaya.

Not merger.

This is now no longer a day-dream. If it is anybody who is day-dreaming, it is the Member for Anson. The possibility of the realisation of this objective of merger with Singapore retaining autonomy in labour and education is so real that it has shaken not only the Member for Anson, but the Barisan Sosialis as well. Of course, both parties tried to get over this shock by quibbling on the meaning of merger. Mr Speaker, it is not the P.A.P. that is making impossible conditions leading to the impossibility of merger, but I say that it is the Barisan Sosialis who are putting forward impossible conditions which will not be accepted by the Federation Government as the basis for merger. They are putting up conditions which will not be acceptable either to the people in the Federation or the people in Singapore. When the Federation of Malaya Agreement was implemented in 1948, Singapore was excluded from the Federation, but Penang and Malacca became integrated into the Federation. Since that time political and economic interests grow more and more divergent in Singapore and the Federation, so that today sectional interests do exist in both territories. It is because of the divergent outlook in many spheres, particularly in the fields of education and labour, that the approach to the problem of merger must be made in such a way so that there is no violent clash of sectional interests. I ask the House not to under-rate the consequences of disasters which can be brought about by a clash of sectional interests. We have seen historical precedents in India and Ceylon, where there have been disastrous clashes leading to misery for thousands of people over the questions of language, religion and education. Singapore is separated from the Federation not only by the Straits of Johore, but also by a gulf in the outlook of the people of both territories in various spheres. The physical separation of Singapore from the Federation can be immediately bridged by a man-made causeway, but I say the differences in mental outlook can never be overcome -

By different education.

Order.

- today or tomorrow, but they can only be overcome gradually with the passage of time and mutual tolerance and understanding - two qualities which I hope the Member for Anson will cherish. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has honestly made an attempt to study Singapore's special interests which, for the time being, are incompatible with the Federation's own interests. On this account he said in the Federal Parliament in October this year (I quote): 'Absolute merger, for instance, would cause some degree of uneasiness in the minds of the people of both territories. There are various sections or interests which have to be taken into account. In Singapore where the great majority of people are Chinese, they naturally want Chinese participation in government service without any reservation. Those who were not born in Singapore would also be unhappy at the different qualifications for citizenship which are applicable to the Federation. They would also not like any control of their education policy, of their system and methods of education in Singapore. They want a free hand in dealing with their labour problem and greater reserve of powers in order to keep the sectional interests of the island satisfied. In other words, they would want to retain their control over their domestic affairs. At the same time, it would he true to stay that the people of the Federation view with some nervousness the prospect of a merger with Singapore. For one thing, the predominantly Chinese population in Singapore have shown strong ties with China and are inclined towards Chinese chauvinism. This is evidenced to some extent by the fact that they even have a Chinese university.'. Sir, under these circumstances, it is obvious that a middle course acceptable to both the Federation and Singapore must be found. The golden mean, as proposed in the White Paper, is for Singapore to form an integral part of the Federation, but still retaining a large measure of autonomy in domestic affairs. Such an arrangement has been compared by the Federation Prime Minister as akin to the relationship existing between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Now, this realistic approach by the Federation Government towards a vital problem, instead of being carefully examined by the Barisan Sosialis, has, on the contrary, brought forth their anger and made them see red. After delving into the history of Ireland and vaunting the facts of the Sinn Fein, a terrorist organisation that used violence and murder to achieve its aim of an independent Ireland, the Member for Queenstown gave this warning. I quote him in the Straits Times, dated 22nd November: 'If the Government in the Federation had the same motive for 'merger' as England had for a union, if they think they could coerce the people of Singapore into subjugation, it is well that they should learn the lessons from the Irish history.'. Sir, the tone of anger, in which this threat was uttered will not pass unheeded, and I dare say that there are qualified historians in the Federation who are not only familiar with Irish history, but who are also capable of reading between the lines of this warning given by the Member for Queenstown. On the one hand, the Barisan Sosialis shake their fists at the Federation and, on the other, they call for a genuine merger. But does this not thoroughly expose their utter dishonesty in moving this amendment, that, in fact, they really have no desire for a merger between Singapore and the Federation? Commenting on the grant of autonomy in education to Singapore, the Federation Prime Minister said (I quote): 'Having taken into account the feelings of the people of Singapore, my colleagues and I have arrived at the conclusion that with the situation prevailing in Singapore it would he inadvisable to agree to any proposa1 to impose our education policy at this particular juncture on the state.' Here, we have a reasonable and tolerant approach by the Federation Government towards Singapore's problems. This willingness by the Federation to recognise Singapore's special problems has now been smeared in typical Barisan Sosialis style as a phoney merger. We have our problems - that cannot be denied - and these problems cannot be wiped out by the magic slogan of genuine merger. Slogans cannot solve human problems. They can be solved only by human qualities of reasonableness, tolerance and sincerity. The Barisan Sosialis say they want genuine merger. By that, they mean a full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang or Malacca. Mr Deputy Speaker, my colleagues have already dealt with the consequences if such a genuine merger is adopted and I do not want to retread on old ground that has already been covered. The Minister for Law has expertly explained how automatic citizenship is granted under the Federation citizenship laws and why a large number of Singapore citizens not born in Singapore will not only not qualify for Federation citizenship, but will lose their Singapore citizenship.

Not true!

It will be proved.

I will come to that in a little while. Let me ask - are the Barisan Sosialis sincere in their wanting what they called a genuine merger? In a statement explaining the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on our constitutional future, this is what they said: "We fully realise that many of the policies of the present Right-wing Government in the Federation are unacceptable to us. The present Federation Government is in close alliance with foreign capital: it has bound the country to the so-called British-Malaya Mutual Defence Treaty' and turned our motherland into a military base for British armed forces; its foreign policy has alienated our country from the mainstream of Afro-Asia, particularly Indonesia, Ghana and India. Its internal policies are repressive, particularly to trade unions and intellectuals; freedom of expression, organisation, and other civil liberties are curbed; and its educational policy is misguided."' On the one hand, the Barisan Sosialis damns the Federation Government and here, with their tongue in their cheek, they ask for a genuine merger. This attitude of the Barisan Sosialis is like giving the Federation a kick in the pants and then turning round and saying, "Let's shake hands." Here, very clearly, is exposed the contradiction of the Barisan Sosialis. It reveals not only their immaturity, but worse of all, their insincerity. So when they talk of wanting a genuine merger, they really intend that no merger can be brought about. If the Barisan Sosialis do not accept the attitude of the Federation in so many things, can they expect the people of Singapore, whom they claim to represent, to accept the conditions of a genuine merger with all the implications? Do the Barisan Sosialis expect to bring about merger by demanding that the Federation Government agree to what they do not agree? The Member for Anson claims that his Party's stand is one of complete merger with the Federation and that policy on education and labour should come under the control of the Federation Government. He had admitted that he had offered to the Prime Minister of the Federation Government unconditional merger, but because he was rebuffed he had to seek a new line. Not so long ago, Members of this House will recollect that this very same person - An hon. Member: Who?

- sorry, the Member for Anson wanted to convert Singapore into an independent territory under the control of the United Nations.

On a personal explanation, Mr Deputy Speaker?

If the hon. Member will give way.

Certainly.

I am indebted to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House be fair enough to indicate that it has always been our stand that if we cannot get merger, then we should be independent and within the United Nations? We have never changed our stand.

He has indicated his stand - his second stand. An hon. Member: He will change again!

Order.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Anson always believes in standing on two legs. But let me tell you how he has found himself a third stand, so that today we find him standing not on two legs but on three legs. An hon. Member: What is the third leg?

I will explain to you when the time comes. Sir, just let me go on a little bit on what the Member for Anson has to do with the United Nations. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not that we in this House have any disrespect for the United Nations Organisation, but this proposal by the Member for Anson can only bring Singapore into a state of confusion - as confused as that now existing in his mind and the Congo. On 15th September, the Member for Anson sent me a telegram. Permit me to quote.

Where was he then?

Please! [Interruption].

Order. I hope the Member for Anson and the Government Bench will behave and keep the decorum of this Assembly.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It is not my fault. May I read his telegram: 'Your letter 6th contains elements so hopeful for future have delayed reply to approach issues free from anger and suspicions caused by the leadership and lies of your Government and the political propaganda letter of 26th August. Regret that though your letter 6th September deals with matters grave national moment, you indulge in untrue jibes at political opponents and petty party propaganda. Am deeply stirred by your statements that the arrangements between Singapore and the Federation are those of a merger as a State in the Federation and that the only difference between Singapore and any one of the other States in the Federation is that there will be more powers reserved to the Singapore State Government. If this is true my party and I, despite the past, will support you with all our heart and all our energy in sincerity and humanity. If this is lying party political propaganda we will fight you and damn you even from prison.' Mr Speaker, when he sent me that telegram, he was not in prison. He was honeymooning in Australia! It reads on: 'Reply your specific questions, my party stands for complete merger with the Federation. Singapore should not seek special privileges which would set us apart from our fellow citizens and create envy and antagonism.' And this is where, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I am utterly confused. Just a few lines in the telegram, he says: 'If there would be more reserved powers in the Singapore State Government if this true my party and I will support you.' Now he comes along and says, "My Party stands for complete merger with the Federation. Singapore should not seek special privileges which would set us apart from our fellow citizens and create envy and antagonism. We fully understand that this means Central Government control of defence, external affairs, internal security, education and labour and also considerable financial sacrifice." And yesterday the Member for Anson was warning us - particularly the Minister for Finance who unfortunately was not present - that we would be giving a cut of approximately $90 million to the Federation for defence. But here he has admitted that he is prepared for this sacrifice -

For merger!

'...Central Government control of defence, external affairs, internal security, education and labour and also considerable financial sacrifice. All these we are prepared to accept to establish a sound foundation for a healthy nation. We prefer complete merger but are prepared to support merger with special privileges for Singapore...'. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is exactly what we are presenting in this White Paper.

Not with merger.

`...and no disadvantages, according to the formula that the only difference between Singapore and any one of the other States in the Federation is that there will he more powers reserved to the Singapore State Government. Would he happy to return to Singapore forthwith.' Sir, I am quite lost trying to trace the orbital path of the Member for Anson. He wanders from complete merger with the Federation to the United Nations, from the United Nations to merger with special rights for Singapore and back to unconditional merger. I must confess that it is easier to follow Alice in Wonderland - whom the Member for Anson referred to yesterday - than to follow the March Hare. The Barisan Sosialis demand for full internal self-government can only result in Singaporeans being Singapore citizens and British Nationals and British subjects. Under the White Paper proposals, Singaporeans would be Singapore citizens and Federal Asians. So the P.A.P. contention is that the Barisan Sosialis objective of full internal self-government really amounts to this. The Barisan Sosialis supporters, for all these exuberant anti-colonial shoutings, are reduced to admitting that it is more humiliating to be a Singapore citizen and a Federal national than a Singapore citizen and a British national. They were discomfited to find themselves in this paradox to which they are driven logically by insisting on full internal self-government. The Member for Anson - perhaps not deliberately - came to their rescue by quoting the British Nationality Act under which all Commonwealth citizens are British subjects. Since the Federation is a member of the Commonwealth - so argued the Member for Anson -Federal nationals too would still be British subjects. The Barisan Sosialis were so elated and happy at the clue given to them by the Member for Anson and were so delighted that they had discovered the straw to cling to, that the Member for Queenstown chipped in with an interjection - "Devastating!" The Member for Queenstown and his associates could not have looked more grateful to the Member for Anson, like a dog which has received a bone from its master. But it is a bone without meat. Article 29 of the Federal Constitution provides that "every person who is a citizen of the Federation enjoys ... the status of a Commonwealth citizen ...". The term "British subject" is not used in the Federation Constitution. It is true that the British Nationality Act, 1948, provides that the expressions "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen" shall have the same meaning, but this is only for the purpose of any enactment made in the United Kingdom. It cannot apply to the Federation to which such enactments do not apply. Whatever may be the position in England, the status of a citizen of the Federation is only that of a Commonwealth citizen. Now the concept of "British subject" within the framework of the Commonwealth is a legal fiction - like the legal fiction that a King can do no wrong - the Queen is at the head of the Commonwealth, and to this extent all the different nationals and citizens in the constituent members of the Commonwealth are, for legal convenience, adjudged British subjects. For example, the law for legal convenience presumes that every citizen knows the law, but as everybody knows, this is a legal fiction, as you will have gathered, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you had been present in the House yesterday, from some of the legal pronouncements made in the course of this debate. Legal fiction is one thing and reality is different. Under full internal self-government, the Member for Queenstown and his Bansan colleagues will be carrying British passports. If the Member for Queenstown happens to be in Paris and gets into trouble - not necessarily political though - he would be assisted and protected not by the Malayan Embassy but by the British Embassy. If he is admitted to a delegation in the United Nations - if ever - he would sit with the British delegation and not with the Malayan delegation. But as a Singapore, citizen and a Federation national, he would be carrying the Federation passport and he would be looked after by the Malayan Embassy. He would sit as part of the Malayan delegation in the United Nations. As a Federation national, he would be sitting in the Federation Legislature in Kuala Lumpur and help to shape the defence and foreign policies of Malaya. including Singapore. In a self-governing Singapore, he would not be able to take pant in shaping the defence and foreign policies of Singapore.

Order. I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. We will suspend to 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis have kept on harping upon the tune that the White Paper has been a sell-out. Let me ask them in what way the proposals as contained in the White Paper have sold out their rights? Have they sold out the rights of the Member for Queenstown to practise as a medical doctor? Have they sold out the rights of the Member for Hong Lim to practise as an accountant? Have they sold out the rights of the Member for Anson to practise at the Bar?

$90 million.

Have they sold out the rights of the Member for Pasir Panjang to cut hair? Whose rights have been sold out? If the proposals as contained in the White Paper appear to the Barisan Sosialis to be like purgatory, then surely the logical conclusion is that the prospects of their type of genuine merger must he the road to hell. Let us sum up the stands of the opposition. The Barisan's genuine merger means, as the Minister for Education has said, never, never merger. They speak with their tongues in their cheeks. The reason behind it all is that they want an internal self-governing Singapore. The Member for Anson first fights for unconditional merger; then he wishes to convert Singapore into a territory of United Nations; and then he supports merger with special privileges. These are his three legs. Sir, give him enough time and we will find him standing on four legs!

All animals in the P.A.P.

Yesterday the Member for Anson stated that the Federal Constitution could not disenfranchise the citizens of any State. It is legally correct. But unfortunately he avoids the realities of the situation. Let me explain. Firstly, State nationality by operation of law is restricted to aborigines in the State - Malays born in the State and persons born in the State - one of whose parents was born in the Federation of Malaya. The qualifications for acquiring State nationality, in fact, are more restrictive than those for the acquisition of Federation citizenship. And, in fact, every subject of the Ruler could also qualify to be a Federal citizen under the Federation of Malaya Agreement independently of his status as a subject of the Ruler. In none of the Malay States were the qualifications for the acquisition of State nationality less restrictive than those for the acquisition of Federation citizenship. Secondly, the subjects of the Ruler become citizens of the Federation not by virtue of the Federation Constitution but by virtue of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, entered into between the Rulers of the Malay States and the Queen. They became citizens of the Federation in 1957 by virtue of the tact that they were already Federal citizens. Thirdly, it is not true to say that Penang or Malacca had no citizenship laws before 1948. The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, applied to Penang and Malacca, and subsequently the British Nationality Act, 1948, so that persons born in Penang or Malacca were British subjects or citizens of the U.K. and Colonies. Lastly, the status of a subject - Mr David Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

Explanation, if the Minister would permit. Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

I am obliged, Sir. I never said, Mr Speaker, if you will remember, that there were no citizenship laws in Malacca and Penang. I said very simply, there were never any citizens of Penang or Malacca. Thank you.

Lastly, the status of a subject of the Ruler today has little significance. Its importance stems from this fact - that a person who is a subject of the Ruler is also a citizen of the Federation. But citizenship of the Federation is conferred not by State law but by Federal law. In other words, a person who becomes a subject of the Ruler after 1957 will not ipso facto become a citizen of the Federation. Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Federation Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination in favour of any person on the ground that he is a subject of the Ruler of any State otherwise than as set out in Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Constitution. The qualification for election as a State Legislative Assemblyman is citizenship of the Federation, and not that of a subject of the Ruler. If a citizen of Singapore is not therefore a citizen of the Federation on complete merger, he will, in effect, have no rights other than as a person ordinarily resident in Singapore. He will have no rights, for example, to vote or to stand for election as a Member of the Singapore Legislative Assembly. The Member for Anson said yesterday that the 4:1 ratio of recruitment to the public services in the Federation does not apply to the State service but only to the Federal service. He is correct. And on this basis, he has advanced the argument that complete merger with the Federation will not therefore affect civil servants in Singapore because you can have a Singapore State Civil Service. But there is one major and important point that the Member for Anson has forgotten. It is this: that full merger means that several departments in Singapore will no longer remain under the State service but will come under the Federal service. For example, education, health, judiciary, labour, finance, commerce, industry, will all come under the Federal List. Full merger in effect, therefore, will bring many existing departments in the Singapore Government directly under Federal control, and consequently the principle of the 4 : 1 ratio of recruitment to the public service will apply to the majority of civil servants in Singapore. The State List in the Federal Constitution includes Muslim law, land, agriculture and forestry - there is not much forestry in Singapore - local government outside the Federal capital (we do not have local government today), other services of a local character, State works and water, machinery of the State government, State holidays, creation of offences in respect of any of the matters included in the State List, inquiries for State purposes, including Commissions of inquiry and collection of statistics with respect to any of the matters included in the State List, indemnity in respect of any of the matters in the State List - most important of all, turtles and riverine fishing. The situation may perhaps be saved if we can import enough turtles into Singapore to keep our civil servants busy! You see, Mr Speaker, the Member for Anson is a man of law. I think that is a fact which we must acknowledge. As he himself has admitted, he has been 25 years in the profession - is it 25? Within that period he has also acquired many words. But unfortunately, more important, one must also be a man of logic. I have no objection to the verbosity of the Member for Anson. But the trouble is this: yesterday he got not only himself but also all of us lost in his multitude of words.

You are always lost!

As you said yesterday, Mr Speaker, confusion heaps upon confusion. The -Member for Queenstown asked - why did the Tunku suddenly want merger in spite of his fears? Perhaps we can recast the question. Why did Mr David Marshall and Tun Lim Yew Hock fail to bring about merger? Sir, I am not discouraging the Member for Anson -

Order. Perhaps the Leader of the House has made a slip. He should have said "the Member for Anson" and "the Member for Cairnhill".

Sir, I do not intend to disparage the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Anson, but I want very seriously to bring the correct conclusion to the House, why today we are able to produce a White Paper on merger to which the Federation Government has agreed. I do not say that the Member for Anson is not a clever man. [Interruption] No, no, he is.

You know better.

I do not say that David lacks the wisdom of Solomon! But Solomon is not his middle name. I do not say that Tun Lim Yew Hock failed to bring about merger because he is unfriendly with the Tunku. On the other hand -

Order. I think the Leader must remember that Tun Lim is now the Member for Cairnhill.

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I do not say that the Member for Cairnhill failed to bring about merger because he is unfriendly with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. On the other hand, he spends more of his time in Kuala Lumpur than in Singapore. I do not say unabashedly that merger is now being realised simply because of the P.A.P. Far from it. The prospect of merger is now being realised simply because the time for merger is ripe and the conditions for achieving merger are fulfilled. Merger cannot be imposed by Singapore upon the Federation. On the other hand, it is the Federation that must be willing to accept Singapore into a merger. The condition then was not the same as it is today. There was no indication then that the British would leave Singapore or would make Singapore an independent State. But as I have said today, things have changed. And so must our thoughts. Mr Speaker, Sir, time does not stand still. History does not remain stagnant. So equally no constitutional arrangement need be permanent. The Rendel Constitution under which the Member for Anson operated as Chief Minister was not permanent. The existing Constitution under which we operate today is not permanent. So neither will' the proposed arrangement for merger between Singapore and the Federation be permanent. Agreements owe their existence so long as they are acceptable to the parties which contract the agreements. Agreements, if they are to work out smoothly, must be bilateral, and not be unilaterally imposed by one party upon another party. The heads of agreement for a merger between Singapore and the Federation have been arrived at and presented in this White Paper because they are in accord with prevailing conditions and the mood in the two territories. So also they can be altered in the future to suit the prevailing mood of the future. As the Federation Prime Minister has said, the agreement is a matter relating only to State and Federal Lists. If at some later stage it is thought right and desirable in the national interests that we should revert from State Lists to Federal Lists, then, of course, we can always take the proper steps. Our task. Sir, at the present, is to take care of the present so that the future will not be jeopardised. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the third Session of this Legislative Assembly opens, merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya dominates every other issue. So we are told, Sir, by the Government, and so it is. That is why we are spending so many days debating this issue of merger. That merger is of the utmost importance to the people of Singapore, as it is to the people of the Federation of Malaya, nobody denies. That economically Singapore cannot survive if isolated from the Federation, nobody denies. That merger of the two territories is in the interest of both the territories, we are all fully agreed upon. But then this amendment is being moved in this House because certain misunderstandings have arisen as a result of certain parties trying to confuse the word "merger" with some form of closer association that is envisaged in the Tunku's proposal. Sir, lest we on this side of the House be labelled anti-merger, anti-nationalists, pro-Communists, Communist-inspired, or what have you, let me state categorically here, Sir, that in so far as the Barisan Sosialis is concerned, we stand unconditionally committed to a merger which we define as the genuine reunification and complete integration of the peoples and territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Sir, in the process of the debate in this House, my leader, the Member for Queenstown, has unfortunately been misunderstood and misquoted by certain Members, particularly the Member for the Southern Islands and the Member for Geylang Serai. I would like to put things straight here, Sir, and to state, on behalf of my Party, that we have never attacked the Prime Minister of the Federation in any way in this debate. To us. Tunku Abdul Rahman is not a politician. He is a statesman. We respect him, Sir, because he is a statesman and he puts the interest of the country and the people before his own interest, quite unlike certain other politicians who are quite incapable of doing that. We have never stated that we disrespect the Tunku. We only say that in so far as- we are concerned, we disagree with certain of his policies; just as in so far as U.M.N.O. or the S.P.A. can say that they disagree with our policies. But, Sir, we have never attacked or embarked upon an attack on the person of the Tunku himself. We respect him as a leader of his people elected and loved by his people. An hon. Member: Who are the people?

The people who voted him, of course. Surely it is not my duty here to speak on parliamentary democracy to clarify such things. An hon. Member: Chicken-hearted!

Who is chickenhearted? I beg your pardon, Sir. I should actually be looking at you. But, Sir, having said these things, having stated our stand on merger, it does appear a little confusing that we should have moved an amendment to a motion of the Government which only seeks agreement on the principle of merger. Let me quote, Sir, the last paragraph of the Minister for Labour when he moved this motion. He considered that it was not necessary. This is in the Straits Times of 21st November: 'It was not necessary to have a long debate. What was required was for each Member to declare his stand for the record.' Our stand is clear. We stand committed to full and genuine merger. But then why is there a necessity for an amendment? The answer is very clear and simple. It is because the Government has attempted to confuse the issue and, to borrow a phrase by the Member for Queens-town, has attempted to pass off fish eyes for pearls, or to pass off a dog's meat for mutton by merely exhibiting a sheep's head. That the Government is trying to positively confuse the people of Singapore is undoubted. Even the leader of the S.P.A., in the person of the Member for Cairnhill, has said so much. In view of this blatant attempt to pass off a form of association that is not a merger for merger, it becomes very necessary for us to define the word "merger", so that when we say we stand committed to merger, the people of Singapore and the people in this House will understand what we mean. If we take a good look at the Order Paper of the day we will notice, Sir, that the first item on the Order Paper asks us to state our stand on principle whether we support or do not support merger. In item 3, Sir, on the reverse, there is a motion by the Prime Minister That this House accepts the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 agreed to between the Governments of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories. In item 1, we have merger. We commit ourselves to the principle of merger. So automatically we commit ourselves to item 3. But the Government, Sir, has been very clever, very shrewd indeed in having very discreetly left out the word "merger" in item 3. That brings me now to this memorandum Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961. The intention of the Government, Sir, is to get everybody committed, in item No. 1, to merger in principle and therefore committed in item No. 3, and it has been shrewd enough to leave out the word "merger" in item No. 3. Let us look at Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961. In page 1, clause 2 - Agreement in Principle: 'On 23rd August, 1961, agreement was reached in principle between the Prime Ministers of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore for a merger of the two territories.' A merger. So this motion pertains to an agreement as set out in the White Paper Cmd. 33; the word "merger" is missing in this motion, but in the Cmd. Paper itself, it defines the set of agreements as merger. So to all intents and purposes, if we agree in principle to the first motion, it is not possible for us not to agree in principle to the third motion, because it is the same. It is because of this deliberate attempt, Sir, to confuse the word "merger" that we have found it necessary to introduce an amendment to clarify this man-made and indeed P.A.P.-made confusion on the word. Speaking on this confusion, Sir, I would like to touch on what the Member for Cairnhill said. He waxed eloquent on the whole issue. Before I go on to mention more about his speech, Sir, I would like to make a curious observation to this House. During the first year of the existence of the People's Action Party Government, the Government was preoccupied in attacking the personalities of the Opposition, particularly, the Member for Cairnhill, the Member for Farrer Park and all the worthy Members who sit in front of us. During the second year of existence, its attack shifted slightly to my left; and during the third year of existence its attack has been pinpointed to focus on the Barisan Sosialis, having completely forgotten about S.P.A. Not one Member from the Government benches, Sir, has thought fit to rebut or to argue against the arguments of the Member for Cairnhill. In the Prime Minister's radio series of 12 speeches, there was not a single instance in which the S.P.A. was attacked. The P.A.P., Sir, is supposed to be a socialist party, and the S.P.A. is a Right-wing Party. Sir, to come back to the Member for Cairnhill. He starts off by saying, or at least by attacking the P.A.P. Government for passing off some form of closer association or relationship between the two territories as merger. I quote, Sir, the Straits Times of the 23rd of November: 'Tun Lim said the unfortunate thing was that the P.A.P. Government had tried to describe something which was not merger as a merger, and thereby caused these misunderstandings in the minds of many people.'. Again he says, Sir: '"This closer relationship is definitely not merger," ... Even the Prime Minister of the Federation had said it was more correct to describe it as a very close relationship or association.'. Having established the point, Sir, that what the P.A.P. presents to us is not a merger, he turns round and attacks the Barisan Sosialis for saying exactly the same thing and for trying to define or to clarify the word "merger". Sir, if he were sincere and if he were honest-[Interruption] I beg your pardon. I never said he was dishonest.

Order. The Member for Nee Soon unfortunately is so close to the Member for Cairnhill that he even hears a murmur, which nobody else hears. I would suggest that he turn a deaf ear to murmurs, but open his ears to interjections.

Just a passing remark, Sir. As a medical man, it is very difficult to turn a deaf ear to murmurs because murmurs are the basis on which congenital heart diseases are diagnosed. In any case, Sir -

Order. I suppose the Member for Nee Soon would then like to ask permission to bring his stethoscope here?

It is in no way showing disrespect to the Chair, Sir. You see. Sir, I have not the advantage of a wig to cover my ear and it is a little difficult when the murmurs are so close to completely ignore such murmurs. But, Sir, I shall try to look at you as frequently as possible so that I will not be misled. As I was saying, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill says that the P.A.P. is dishonest in trying to pass off some form of association that is definitely not merger for merger, and in another breath he says merger is merger and where is the necessity for merger to be qualified or defined? If he were sincere - I am not saying he was not. Sir, there can be degrees of sincerity, and there can be degrees of honesty - and if he were honest he would have had to support our amendment because our amendment seeks just to clarify and to define the word merger. All that the amendment seeks to do is to say that we should all agree in principle to merger and that merger should be a genuine merger. The Member for Cairnhill says a merger is a merger. Why should there be a genuine merger and a false merger? But, Sir, if the P.A.P. persists in passing off a phoney merger for a merger, then there must necessarily by argument be also a genuine merger quite opposite to the phoney merger. The Member for Cairnhill goes further to say, "We are against this amendment but we are not against a merger that is genuine; a merger that brings Singapore into the Federation as an integral part of the Federation where all citizens of Singapore enjoy the same rights." Where is the logic? That is exactly what we say we must fight for. That is exactly the same thing he says he must fight for, and yet he opposes the amendment! His Party was against the amendment because it considers the additional words redundant. He himself has set out to show that the merger presented by the P.A.P. is only a form of closer relationship, and therefore not a true merger. We therefore prove to him the necessity for an amendment and he opposes the amendment. Enough of that, Sir. All I wish to say is that the Barisan Sosialis amendment to this motion would have never come up if the Government had been honest and sincere in the application of the word "merger" in their motion and subsequently in their Command Paper. But, Sir, let us again have a look at the Member for Cairnhill. Why is it necessary for the Member for Cairnhill to defend one issue and yet attack the same issue when he himself tries to confuse the whole issue? I would submit, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill has got dual loyalties, not personalities. On the one hand, Sir, his very close association with the Tunku, which may be a very good thing for Singapore, Sir, we admit, urges his inner self to support the P.A.P. as much as possible in so far as this Tunku's merger is concerned. On the other hand, Sir, by supporting the P.A.P. merger too far, he may very well earn the displeasure of his own colleagues in the S.P.A. because they do not want him to help the P.A.P., although the P.A.P. would certainly welcome that help, seeing that they need it so much nowadays. And thus torn between two loyalties, not exactly two personalities, he has balance this way and balance that way and although we were all overcome by his eloquence, his logic has not been so overpowering as his eloquence. It is not my intention here, Sir, to weigh between his logic and his eloquence and to advise which one to accept. But I consider it my duty to expose the weaknesses of his argument, because if his argument had been strong, and if he had not been contradictory himself, he would have had no alternative but to support the amendment. So having said nice things about how he wishes to support Government, he feels it is necessary also to attack the Government because we all know. Sir, the political situation today is that both the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. are fighting for the support of the Right-wing faction of the voters, the English-educated faction, because the Left-wing faction is now completely behind the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, they are fighting for a common pool. To borrow the words of the Prime Minister, they are tapping the same reservoir, sinking the same pipes into the same substrata of the earth, tapping the same oil - [Interruption]. I am glad the Minister said, "same sewer", because I was referring to the P.A.P. tapping it. I am so glad. I am indebted to him. I was very glad that I heard that murmur, because, for the first time, we hear the P.A.P. admitting that from tapping oil, they have changed to tapping sewerage. So, Sir, having to fight for the same group of people they become at loggerheads with each other. They either merge or they fight. It is not for me, Sir, here

Order. I was waiting for the hon. Member to pull himself back. He is going so very, very far away, as far away as the Member for Changi went, and that was the time I pulled the Member for Changi back very gently. I hope the Member for Nee Soon will pull himself back.

Thank you, Sir, I am much obliged for your advice. I just wanted to labour on one point, that the Member for Cairnhill took that line because, on the one hand, he had to support merger; on the other hand, he would not want to go so far in support of merger that he loses his own following to the P.A.P. That is all I wanted to impress upon the House, Sir. The Member for Cairnhill, having made a sort of political analysis as to how the motion should be dealt with, then felt that if he pursued the line too far, he might very well get into difficulties and get himself exposed. So before long he changed his tune and changed his line and talked about frivolous things. That was the occasion, Sir, when I had the advantage of his very nice disposition to allow me to interject, and I find, for that, the newspapers have put a photograph of myself in the papers -

With a lovely beard also!

Unfortunately, the photograph was not quite clear - An hon. Member: You look handsome!

Thank you. The Member for Cairnhill likened merger to a marriage. Although it is a bit frivolous, I must say that it is a very good simile because, by definition, a merger is the complete integration of two groups of people, two corporations, or two units of anything you may have into one, so that the separate identities merge into one common identity. So is marriage, Sir. [Interruption].

Order.

Sir, I will limit myself to rebuts from the Front Benchers. I will not bother about the Back-Benchers. So to liken marriage to merger is indeed a very skilful way of arguing why merger should be defined, because though marriage can be legally defined, we still can have so many form of marriages.

The Women's Charter.

The Women's Charter allows polygamy in respect of Muslims, of course. Still, that is a legal definition of marriage.

Muslims are not included in the Women's Charter. Muslims are not monogamous.

Order.

Talking of marriages, I was very interested to read an account of the different possible types of marriages in a book of Chinese fiction.

You are going for fiction -

Order. I have, of course, indicated that I will try not to intervene as much as I can help it. I was just wondering whether this discourse on the types of marriages will help us in this debate.

Sir, just as the Member for Cairnhill has compared marriages to merger, so I would like to show that there can be so many types of marriages and so many types of merger. In embarking on this course, if you feel that I am not keeping within the confines of the subject under debate, I will be glad to drop it. So may I pursue, Sir?

For a little while.

This is a book on Chinese stories from the tenth to the seventeenth centuries. It describes a young girl who, unfortunately, was separated from her parents and found herself, because of the hard realities of life, in a house of disrepute. The adopted mother found it difficult to persuade the girl to accept her first client -

Order. If the hon. Member is going into those details, we might find him going further and further into details which may not be proper for this House to hear. Let us perhaps forget about these Chinese marriages and come to the "marriage" of the Member for Cairnhill.

Since I have gone more than half-way through the story - there is only a little bit more, Sir - you might allow me to carry on so that I can drive my point home. So this mother got a friend to talk to this girl and the girl said, "I am a reputable girl from a reputable family. I shall only consent to marriage and nothing else." So the friend who had the gift of the gab said, -

From the Barisan Sosialis.

- "It is all very well for you to get married, but do you know that there are so -many types of marriages? There are, for instance, true marriage, sham marriage, sad marriage, happy marriage, marriages that are timely, marriages of necessity, marriages that end well, and marriages that end badly." I had intended, Sir, to go into a little more detail in the definitions of these marriages, but since it might not meet with your approval, I shall close the book now, and let in one more - marriages of convenience. I shall labour a little bit more on marriages of convenience. These marriages still take place today in Singapore. In fact, I was at the Immigration Office only a few days ago -

The wrong office.

- and I heard the story of another woman who used this trick of getting into Singapore. We know that there are a lot of nice young ladies in Hongkong who wish to come into Singapore but they could only come in, Sir, if they had - An hon. Member: A genuine marriage.

- definite grounds to enter Singapore. And one of the grounds - compassionate perhaps, I do not know: it may have been stopped today.

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Nee Soon has been talking about the different kinds of -marriages. I suggest that he can talk about this subject when there is a Bill on marriages.

I would like to give way to ladies. But I cannot see that that is a point of order. That is a point for argument. But I do suggest to the Member for Nee Soon - talking about marriage - that he had better come to the point as soon as he can.

I was not talking of pre-marital relationships. I was only talking of marriages. Sir, I was talking about marriages of convenience and young girls in Hongkong find -

Order. I think every Member in this Assembly knows what a marriage of convenience is. So please do not define it. We know what marriages of convenience are.

Sir, just as there are many forms of marriages, so there are many forms of merger: true merger, genuine merger, phoney merger, sell-out merger, merger that is pursued for the purpose of saving the skin of a small group of people. When people lose their support, they look for other means of support. When a building is about to collapse they either pull it down or patch it with planks, and support it with props and carry on for a little bit longer, although ultimately the building will collapse, [Interruption]. But in view of the many types of possible mergers, it surely behoves us, Sir, in this Chamber, enacting laws on behalf of the people of Singapore to see that if we talk about merger, we mean what we are talking about. My leader, the Member for Queenstown, [Interruption] -

Order. May I ask Members of this Assembly not to interject if they can help it, otherwise we will never finish this debate which has gone on for four days? This is the fifth day. Perhaps the Speaker might be prompted to accept a motion for the closure if interruptions go on.

The necessity, Sir, for us to amend the motion so as to define the word "merger" has been emphasised by the Member for Queens-town. But unfortunately after he finished, other Members have stood up to confuse the issue again, so that confusion mounts upon confusion - as you have said, Sir - and it becomes necessary for me to clarify a little bit again. I shall not go on for a marathon session. I shall just mention a few things which should be emphasised and re-emphasised. It is very necessary to define what "merger" is.

On a point of clarification. Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

Can the hon. Member term a pro-Communist or a Communist merger as a temporary or a genuine merger?

Does the Member for Nee Soon understand that?

If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs is not able to express himself clearly in English, I will not mind if he expresses himself in Mandarin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can we term a pro-Communist or a Communist merger as a temporary or a genuine merger?

Order. Hon. Members must realise that when they rise for elucidation, they must rise for elucidation of some part of the speech that has been made. I do not know whether the Member for Nee Soon has mentioned a pro-Communist or a Communist type of merger - at least not for the moment. Dr Sheng.

Sir, I was saying that if the P.A.P. were sincere when they said merger, we would have accepted it, but even the Member for Cairnhill has said that they are not sincere. So as it is not possible for us to accept what they mean when they say merger it becomes necessary for us to get that merger defined. If I am not digressing too far, I may mention another instance of how the words of a person who is crafty and cunning cannot be accepted unless they are defined. I had a friend in Hongkong who went into a curio shop to buy a bit of china. He was, like myself, very unceremoniously dressed without a coat and tie - as they are not wont to do in Hongkong - and he asked the price of a very nice-looking curio piece. He was told that it was $500. As the salesman did not expect him to buy it, he just quoted the genuine price without haggling. When my friend showed interest in that curio and expressed a desire to buy it, the saleman immediately told him, "$500. Yes, but American dollars". The difference, Sir, is six times. One American dollar is six Hongkong dollars. We know the craftiness of such people and we know that people in this House are capable of the same degree of craftiness. We know that the Prime Minister is a man who is very shrewd. I try to be parliamentary, Sir. I had intended to say "crafty", hut I thought that you might rule that as unparliamentary for a person in this House. In any case, "shrewd" and "crafty" mean the same thing. I remember an occasion in this House when the Prime Minister stood up to speak on a very important issue. He told the House, "We in the P.A.P. lay our cards on the table so that everybody can see that we are sincere and can understand us and sympathise with us." I took him as a sincere man then. I took him to mean that as the cards were on the table he had nothing to hide.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

Sir, I think he misquoted the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, "We lay cards on the table. But only fools turn them face upwards!"

I was coming to that, Sir. Thank you for helping me to develop the theme. I was saying the Prime Minister told the Opposition that the cards were on the table, meaning that the P.A.P. was not hiding anything. "Here are the facts. You see for yourself. You judge for yourself. The P.A.P. has done right." And when the Member for Farrer Park (I think it was him, Sir) jumped up to ask him, "face up or face down?", he said, "Face down, of course, because only fools put their cards face up." Sir, it might be an excellent repartee, but it certainly does not speak well for the Prime Minister's sincerity. Thanks to the Minister for Culture for helping me.

I knew you were coming to that.

So in the case of people who have no intention of being sincere to the Opposition, how can we accept their words unless we confine their words to the meaning of the words by attaching qualifications to those words? It is now quite clear that I have told the House of the insincerity of the people opposite, and in dealing with insincere people, one must be very careful. When one buys something from them, and they say, "$500", we had better add the words "Straits" or "Malayan", before they jump up and say, "American", as they are wont to look for American dollars nowadays. The Member for Cairnhill admitted to bootlicking in Kuala Lumpur. I thought he admitted. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, Sir. And he described the action of the Prime Minister as something that is more than bootlicking, and I would not venture to think what can be more degrading than bootlicking. If I were to use my medical student day language, I am sure, Sir, you will rule me out of order. Suffice it to say that the P.A.P., when they were in the Opposition, said that in dealing with the Federation, they should not be in a position of supplicants claiming for favour. Now that they are in the government, they are indeed mendicants asking for alms. I think I have said enough of the Member for Cairnhill, and now to come to the Minister for Finance. An hon. Member: He is not here.

The Minister for Finance - in the Straits Times, 22nd November, headlines in bold type: 'Barisan's Aim is to Topple Tengku's Govt., says Goh' - trying to sour up relationship between the Barisan Sosialis and the Tunku. 'The Minister for Finance, Dr Goh Keng Swee, told the Legislative Assembly today that the Barisan Sosialis had stated in practically so many words that their objective in merger was eventual overthrow of the "right wing feudalistic Government" in the Federation by strengthening the struggle against it.' I have said, Sir, we have all the respect for the Tunku. But that does not mean, Sir, that we are not privileged to disagree with his policy. After all, Sir, we are a parliamentary democracy, which means that each group of people or each political Party may present their Party programme to the people and let the people choose. And if we are not allowed to do that, then where. Sir, is parliamentary democracy? The Barisan Sosialis had never advocated that we should overthrow the Tunku by bloody revolution or anything of that sort. We believe in parliamentary democracy. We disagree with certain policies of the Alliance Government. We adopt the constitutional way in presenting our own policies to the people and fight and struggle for the people to accept our policy so that we may implement them for the benefit of the people. That, Sir, is fair and square. The way the Minister for Finance put it is certainly a blatant attempt to sour the relationship between the Tunku and us. Let us now, Sir, turn to the P.A.P. political bible. I have got two of them here. In case they cannot recognise it, the P.A.P. symbol is there. It is the Fourth Anniversary Souvenir of the P.A.P. published in 1958. Sir, my intention in quoting certain relevant sections in this book is to state in exactly as many words as the Minister for Finance said that it was also the intention of the P.A.P. Government in 1958 to topple the Right-wing feudalistic Government in the Federation. It is exactly the same intention of the P.A.P. What the Barisan Sosialis seeks to do today is exactly what the P.A.P. sought to do in 1958. It is because the Barisan Sosialis has kept the straight path of the P.A.P. whilst the P.A.P. has deviated that we are different today. In page 2: 'The creation of an independent, democratic, non-Communist Socialist Malaya (Federation plus Singapore) is a task which will occupy our whole life-time. They are enduring objectives for which, as socialists seeking a just system of organising society, we must always strive.' We must always strive to change a Right-wing feudalistic society into a Socialist society. What do the P.A.P. strive to do today, Sir? They strive to sour the relationship between the Bansan Sosialis and the Tunku because they have deviated from this stand, and the Barisan has maintained this stand.

Huh!

Do I hear a laugh? Or is it a sneer? Sometimes people, when their conscience hurts them for the wrong things they have done to other people, sneer at themselves. Sir, when the P.A.P. said in 1958 that they must strive to fight for a socialist Malaya, they implied that the Tunku's Government was not a socialist government. They meant that they must strive to topple the Tunku's Government by parliamentary and by democratic means. Let us see what else they have to say in this political bible of theirs. Talking about the need for merger, it says: 'This is even more true now than four years ago. For to achieve freedom in an island we must achieve merger ... the British obstructed us [in the earlier part] ... Now the Alliance led by U.M.N.O. rules the Federation and they thwart our hopes of merger ...' And why does the Alliance Government thwart the P.A.P.'s hopes for merger? Why is the Alliance Government anti-merger? The P.A.P. gave two reasons. They are so well known today that they do not bear repetition. But lest the P.A.P. forget their own argument, I shall just remark in passing that the two main reasons are too many Chinese and too many Leftists. And how should they go about resolving these difficulties? In respect of too many Chinese, they have a paragraph here which can, I think, resolve the difficulties. It reads: 'It must be demonstrated to three million Malays in the Federation that the one million Chinese in Singapore are ready, willing and able to be absorbed as one Malayan people, all able to speak Malay, and willing to work together for the economic betterment and upliftment of the Malays as equals of the other races. Malay fears that the Chinese wilt outnumber and overcome them in the economic, social and cultural fields of human endeavour must be dispelled. The Malays will want to be satisfied that their language and culture are not relegated to second place. Hence the paramount importance of settling once and for all what is the premier language of Malaya. It is for us in a mainly Chinese Singapore to show that we accept this and welcome any steps to make the Malay language the national language spoken by all.' It is possible, Sir, to resolve the Federation Alliance's fear that there are too many Chinese in Singapore. And the answer is there, Sir, a common culture, a common language. And it is untrue to say that all -the people of Singapore are Chinese chauvinists. Let us -look around, Sir, the Backbenchers on the Government side. The Member for Kallang returned from a division that is predominantly Chinese. The Member for Bukit Timah from a constituency that is predominantly Chinese. The Member for Kampong Kapor - predominantly Chinese. The Member for Ulu Pandan - predominantly Chinese. It shows, Sir, that the Chinese people in Singapore are not all that much Chinese chauvinistic. It shows that with proper leadership, a proper education system, it is possible to build a Malayan nation. "Too many Chinese" fears can be resolved. And all these Members, Sir, fought against Chinese candidates who play the communal line, the Chinese chauvinism line. And they won! And not only won, but won comfortably on the stand of the P.A.P. which today has become the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. It is unnecessary for me, Sir, to labour further on this business of too many Chinese, because it is not the fear of the Federation Alliance leaders. The real fear is too many Leftists. Let us see how the P.A.P. goes about trying to resolve this problem of too many Leftists. I know this book very well, Sir, as I have read it many times. I think it is well worth reading many more times again. But I fail to find in any section, in any paragraph, in any sentence, the P.A.P.'s solution to this problem. Of course, today the P.A.P. will say, "Let us forget about socialism. Therefore we can get a merger." But if they said so in 1958, they would not be here in this House. So they did not say that. All they said, Sir, was that in Malaya, where the majority of the votes belong to people who are poor, if the system of one man one vote is to be operated, a government that is pledged to the poor workers, poor peasants, under-privileged people, must necessarily win, and therefore socialism must necessarily win the political battle for the minds and hearts of the people. And if socialism is put against Communism, socialism is far superior to Communism because it avoids bloodshed, revolution, unnecessary trials and tribulations. And, therefore, if a more egalitarian society is to be built in Malaya, a socialist system is infinitely superior to the Communist system, with which, Sir, I fully agree. I fully agree. They did not give an answer to how to solve this problem of too many Leftists. They give the answer today. Let us deviate. Let us go towards the Right; let us forget about socialism; then the answer will be found, and the problem will be solved. Let us see in what language the P.A.P. stated these facts. In page 5 of this political bible, they said: 'We are Democratic Socialists, not Communists, and we believe in achieving the socialist society through peaceful methods of persuasion, and the vote through the political machinery of the democratic system. If Malaya wants to create a socialist society without inter-racial strife, it can only be through the more tolerant and humane road of Democratic Socialism. Because socialists believe in revolution by consent, not revolution by violence, they are provided in Malaya with the best conditions for success. The less uncompromising method of persuasion through the democratic system ensures that social changes are not forced against emotional and violent resistance of the people.' Today the Minister for Finance sees fit to attack the Barisan Sosialis for a stand which they embraced in 1958. If that is not proof of the P.A.P.'s Rightist deviation, what is? Let us examine the motive that leads to the so-called P.A.P. merger today. Will the P.A.P. merger help to resolve the economic problem that we are faced with? The Tunku is the best judge. He says, "No, not to an appreciable extent." What then is the purpose of this merger? Again let us hear what the Tunku has to say: 'The merger's main consideration is political, political in the sense that socialism or Communism should not invade this part of the world.' And according to the P.A.P. definition, it says that: 'It is apparent from the statements that are made from time to time by Federation Alliance leaders that they make no clear distinction between Democratic Socialists and Communists.' I repeat, Sir, '...that the Alliance leaders make no clear distinction between Democratic Socialists and Communists. Anything Left is viewed with apprehension. For anything that is Left is thought to be Communist or potentially Communist. There is no line between Democratic Socialism and Communism. So in order to check the advance of Democratic Socialism, Communism can easily be invoked.' It reads again, and this is the important point: 'The Malays are devout Muslims. And Islam is a powerful religion which is anti-Communist. Malay leaders always find in the emotional loyalties of Malays to Islam a powerful and easy resistance to invoke against Communism. So any group of men who are not only anti-Communist but also anti-Socialist and anti any change towards a more egalitarian society...' That was the P.A.P.'s objective - towards a more egalitarian society. It says here: '...any group of men who are anti any change towards a more egalitarian society, can easily blur the lines between Democratic Socialism and Communism, and invoke the ready, made resistance against Democratic Socialism by labelling it Communism.' We have seen the application of this theory by the Prime Minister of Singapore, who also was responsible for writing this very sentence into this political bible of the P.A.P. As I was saying, the motive of this merger is neither economic nor in the interests of the people of Singapore. It is a political motive and that political motive is the obstruction of socialism developing in this country. The obstruction of the spread of socialism in this country. If that is the motive for merger today, it certainly is diagonally opposite to the motive in the P.A.P. political bible which says that we should seek merger for the purpose of creating a socialist society. The merger today, Sir, is for the purpose of retarding, negating, making it impossible for the creation of a socialist society. This point is important, Sir, because the P.A.P. always argues that it had a mandate from the people to bring about this merger. I submit, Sir, that the P.A.P. had a mandate from the people only for a merger which would lead to socialism and to independence which means more political freedom. Therein lies the P.A.P. attempt to confuse the word "merger". Therein lies the strength of our argument to show that in trying to confuse the word "merger", they are only looking after their own interest and not the interest of the people who elected them. As I was saying, Sir, the purpose, the motive, the objective of the whole exercise in this P.A.P. merger is a political on-e. It seeks to retard the expansion of socialism. We can quite appreciate, Sir, the Alliance Government wanting to retard the growth of a socialist society, because they call themselves Right-wing. And as Right-wing politicians, they have every right - indeed it is their duty and responsibility - to see the prepetuation of a Right-wing political system. The Tunku, in saying that he wants to check the advance of socialism, is completely -

Order. I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to misquote the Tunku. I do not think he has ever said that he wishes to retard the advance of socialism, unless the Member can give me chapter and verse. I think what the Tunku has said is that he wants to retard the growth of Communism.

Sir, the Tunku wants to retard the expansion of Communism and, by P.A.P. definition, I will read it again, Sir, for you -

Order. I think I understand what is in the mind of the Member for Nee Soon. But he must not say in so many words that the Tunku has said that he wishes to retard the growth of socialism. All that the Tunku has said is that he wishes to retard - or words to the effect - Communism. Whether the P.A.P. says Communism and Socialism are the same is quite a different matter.

I am indebted to you for your advice, Sir,I will try to do better now. The Tunku says that the objective of the merger is to retard the growth of Communism, and by P.A.P. definition there is no clear distinction. In fact, there is a lot of deliberate befuddlement between Communism and Democratic Socialism. [Interruption]. Do I hear sneers again'?

Order. The Member for Nee Soon must not listen to these little sneers that come along or little laughter that comes along from the Front Bench. If he concentrates as much as I am concentrating, perhaps he will not hear them.

As I said, Sir, the objective of the merger is to retard the development of a political system which is conveniently called Communism, and is really Socialism. The basic fears which the P.A.P. have analysed in this political bible have not been resolved. On the contrary, the merger has come not because there is a resolution of the fears but because there is an intensification of those fears and the merger has been hatched to circumvent those fears. This it does by a form of merger which gives Singapore no proportionate representation in the House of Parliament and no automatic conversion of Singapore citizenship into Federal citizenship. Talking about citizenship, I would like to remark that the Minister for Finance, who has a very acute mind, is sometimes purposely not very acute when it is not in his interest to be so. For instance, in the first place, he said that it was not possible for Singapore citizens to be automatically converted into Federal citizens. Subsequently, when chapter and verse was quoted to show that it was possible, he just said, "Well, well, mm, mm,", typical of him, you know. "mm'mm". And subsequently it becomes only an academic interest but still possible. It could but it would not be done. Well, perhaps that is a form of intellectual honesty. But if that is so, I do not recognise the honesty part of it. It might be intellectual. After all an intellectual often bamboozles people by talking of very, very complicated things.

I thought it was "Oo, oo".

I did not hear that one, Sir. I was about to rebut anyway. Talking of the question of citizenship, I remember in this House the time when the Minister for Finance caught a cold and was not able to hear very well, his master's voice - at one time my master's voice - spoke on his behalf.

Who is your master now?

Still the same, the people. The people are always our masters. And he said the reason why automatic conversion from Singapore citizenship into Federal citizenship was not possible was because of the Communists in Singapore. The Prime Minister, Sir, also had occasion to mention at the Airport that in his reckoning there are about 300 Communists in Singapore. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis feel that if 300 Communists in Singapore are depriving all the citizens of Singapore from being converted into Federal citizens automatically, then surely it is the business, nay, the responsibility, of the Government, by using professional trackers so well praised by the Minister for Finance, to identify these Communists, label them, deregister them from the citizenship register so that the other 300,000 minus the 300 Communists may get automatic citizenship. That is a fair appeal, because if three people are blocking 3,000 people from attaining certain rights, then it is only fair that the three people should be sorted out so that their deeds or misdeeds, or whatever it is, will not affect the future of the others. And, Sir, we have the Minister for Labour and Law -

Health and Law.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I am much obliged. It is the Minister for Health and Law. There are a lot of stories going around as to why the switch came round -

Especially to look after lunatics!

That I suppose, Sir, is the privilege of doctors and certainly not of lawyers. As a doctor, I will be in a much better position to decide and to judge who is a lunatic and who is not. The Minister for Health and Law laboured quite unnecessarily on points of citizenship which were not very elucidating. He tried to put one over us by saying the Constitution does not provide for proportionate representation until Article 116 was called to his attention. Then when that Article was being described - I refer to the Malayan Constitutional Documents on the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, Article 116, which provides for an electoral quota for proportionate representation of the various States - he came up and tried to mislead us by quoting a lot of mathematical figures. It is as if he tries to mislead you when you ask him how to get to Fullerton Square. "You go straight, turn left, then turn right, take two steps, to the left again, then go round, turn right again, then proceed straight to about 10 yards, and then there you see a pill-box, turn right again." In the end, Sir, you will not know where you are. That was exactly what he sought to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.

If the Member will give way. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he has misunderstood the official record which I produced yesterday. It is a pity I have not got it here with me now. I drew the House's attention to Table 1 and the formula that was used. That formula was produced by people who are competent to work out the proportions, Sir.

I am much obliged, Sir,I was just about to come to that because it did not prove very much, Sir, because when he was quoting the figures. I took down a few figures and I noticed that his main argument was that it is not the electoral quota alone that matters, but that other factors, such as the population quota, also matter; and that in arriving at the figure, it is a computation of electoral quota, population quota, and certain other aspects. But the two most important items are the electoral quota and the population quota. If I had been permitted that day to clarify for him, Sir, I would have told him that there was no need to produce all these complicated calculations, because if one looks at the citizen population ratio in the Federation and the citizen population in Singapore, we note a curious fact, Sir, and that is that they are the same. There are some 2,350,000 citizens and 6.4 million population in the Federation, so the ratio becomes one citizen to 2.6 of the population.

Order. All this academic debate on these numbers, does it really help? I think all the Assembly need know is the Barisan Sosialis claim that they should have 30 seats or 25 seats. The Minister for Law has said that his calculation gives 22 seats. Let us split the difference, shall we?

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I had intended to say was that the ratio of citizen to population is identical. In Singapore, there are 2.6 members of the population to one citizen, and in the Federation the same figure applies - it is also 2.

6. So if both factors influence the final result of the computation, and if the ratios are the same, then they should not influence very much. And I was surprised to hear the Minister say that there should be no proportionate representation because it is quite unnecessary. It is quite necessary, Sir, that if two States having an equal population and an equal number of citizens are to merge, each must have exactly the same number of representatives because they have the same population. This is just imaginary, otherwise there is no equality, otherwise there is no democracy. For instance, shall I say, as a matter of argument, that one State is in Holland Road? They have a thousand citizens. Another State is in Chinatown. They also have a thousand citizens, hut because the Holland Road citizens happen to pay more income tax and property tax, it does not mean that they should have inure representatives in the House than the Chinatown people, because basic human rights demand that in so far as political and human rights are concerned, all men are equal. It does not matter whether a man is a millionaire and the other man is a poor man. They have equal rights. The point I wish to stress, Sir, is that today there are people who say, out of consideration of tax payment or retention, there must be a subtraction, a diminution of the number of representatives Singapore must have in the House. If that is not a feudalistic argument, then I do not know what feudalistic means. We have people telling us that we should be entitled to 21 representatives in the Federation Parliament by the application of a certain formula which I accept -

You accept?

- and on the other hand, they say we may only have 15 because we retain much of our revenue in Singapore for the advancement of our own policies. That is to say, for the privilege of retaining that revenue, we lose our political rights. I remember the same people advocating to voters before the election, "Never mind if the S.P.A. gives you $5, take it. But you do not sell that right. You can still vote for the P.A.P. even if you take that money. They will never know. But on principle, you should never take the money." Now, they come and tell us that political rights can be bought in terms of dollars and cents. But, Sir, even then it is not a matter of how much we retain and how much we give. It is a matter of how much we give in hard cash and how much service we receive in consideration for that amount of money paid. I have worked out the contribution Singapore is expected to pay - $90 million approximately. And how much benefit can Singapore accrue from this $90 million? The Federation armed forces will defend us. Defence, we have already been provided with. External affairs, we have already been provided with. All we get is the police, against which item the estimate has hitherto showed $23,514,450. That is our cost. We are paying $90 million for a service for which we are at present paying $23� million in the 1961 Estimates. Surely, Sir, it is not how much we retain, but how much we pay, and for the amount of money we pay, how much we receive in service in goods or in kind. To pay $90 million and receive $23� million back in service is certainly not paying very little. We are paying a lot. And for paying so much, we have nine or five or how many seats lopped off from the Federal Parliament. I do not follow the argument. If only people are honest and put the facts before us clearly and without confusion, we will all be in a much better position to appreciate the facts. I was very interested to listen to the argument of the Minister for Culture. He stretched the argument very far, Sir, to say -

On a point of order, Sir. I do not wish to interrupt the Member for Nee Soon, but if he is going on until 8 p.m., may I, at your suggestion, just interject to read this telegram which I received from the Tunku? But if the Member is not going on until 8 p.m., then I will have the opportunity to do it in the proper order while the debate is on. I will wait for my turn.

Is it of some importance?

I think the House will want to know, Sir. I received that -

Could the Member for Nee Soon indicate how long more he will take?

I was just waiting for you to sit down, Sir, before I got up. I thought I would finish within one hour. That is what I told certain people, but I will not be able to do so. I will give way to the Prime Minister first.

The point is, does the Member think he will complete his speech before 8 p.m.?

Not having the benefit of a written script, Sir, I am unable to assure you.

In that case, I think the House will be interested to hear the Prime Minister reading the telegram. I do not think there will be any objection? No objection. 7.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this afternoon at 3 o'clock I received a telegram from London, from the Prime Minister of the Federation who is now there, through his office in Kuala Lumpur, in which he stated as follows (I am reading only parts of it, Sir, because some other parts do not concern this House): 'Agreement reached between us and the U.K. on the use of Singapore base is only extension of existing agreement with U.K. It permits the use of the base as provided under the terms of the treaty only with the agreement of future Malaysia Government, but not as of right. The British Government and ourselves emphasise Singapore base is not S.E.A.T.O. base.' Sir, I am unable to lay on the Table the whole telegram because it contains certain other matters of public importance which should not be tabled in this House. But this is the part which relates to defence and which is of interest to the House, and I shall give the Clerk an authenticated copy of the telegram. May I also, Mr Speaker, Sir, table two letters exchanged between myself and the Federation Prime Minister, which I think may save the Member opposite and many other Members in this House from an unduly lengthy discussion on hypothetical "yes" and "noes" of what the Federation Parliament may or may not do. I think the Tunku knows that the exchange of letters is being tabled in this Assembly today. I have copies here. Copies of the two letters handed in to the Clerk.

Whilst the copies are being distributed, Sir, may I read the contents of the two letters? First is my letter to the Federation Prime Minister, dated 11th November, 1961. I wrote as follows: 'My dear Prime Minister, May I refer to our memorandum, para, graph 15, Representation in the new Federation Parliament, House of Representatives and the Senate. May I place on record our respective views and considerations which led to the understanding recorded in this paragraph. If merger were completely on the basis of Penang, then the citizenship laws of the present Federation which applied in Penang will apply to Singapore. About 284,000 representing those born in Singapore out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for citizenship of the present Federation. This would entitle Singapore to send 14 representatives to the Central Federation Legislature. This is comparable to the 14 seats to which Johore's 291,230 citizens are entitled. The remaining 340,000 Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore would have to apply for citizenship under the present citizenship laws of the Federation which require, inter alia, a residential qualification and a knowledge of the Malay language. On the basis of the numbers in the other States in the present Federation who have qualified by application for citizenship in this way, over two-thirds i.e. more than 230,000, will lose their present citizenship. On the other hand, the claim that Singapore citizens should automatically become Federation citizens and thereby increase the representation Singapore would be entitled to, was and still is, in the view of your government, too absurd to merit serious consideration. Merger on either of these terms would be unrealistic. However, you have agreed that all present Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship rights and become Federal nationals, provided this is not then put forward as a reason for an increase in the number of representatives for Singapore. My government estimated that on a merger like Penang, Singapore would be entitled to 19 seats in view of Perak's 450,000 voters entitling Perak to 19 seats. You pointed out that on a merger like Penang, Singapore would lose her autonomy in education and labour. Further, the citizenship laws which applied to Penang and Malacca at the time of Merdeka were due to the special constitutional position of these territories as part of the Federation of Malaya since 1948. Your view was, and still is, that it does not follow that the same treatment must necessarily apply to Singapore. If the stricter citizenship laws of the other States of the Federation were applied, Singapore would be given no more than 12 seats in Parliament, since weightage must be given to the rural areas as in the rest of the Federation. Finally, we have agreed that Singapore would keep more than three-quarters of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities on education and labour, social welfare, health and all the other matters set out as state or concurrent responsibilities in the schedule annexed to our memorandum, and be entitled to 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation. This arrangement has precedents in constitutional practice. Northern Ireland, though part o the United Kingdom retains certain autonomous powers. In return for this, though Northern Ireland would be entitled to 16 seats on the basis of electoral strength, she has only 12 because she retains autonomous powers. Should in the future Singapore surrender some or all of her autonomous powers and state revenue to the Central Government, the question of representation can he reviewed.' The Prime Minister of the Federation replied on 13th November, 1961, as follows: 'My dear Prime Minister, May I refer to your letter of 11th November, 1961 regarding the representation in the new Federation Parliament which is contained in paragraph 15 of the memorandum forming the basic proposals for merger of Singapore. I would like to emphasise that it cannot he assumed that the analogy of Penang or Malacca is necessarily relevant to the status of Singapore in a merger with the Federation. Article 22 of the Federation Constitution makes provision for a merger of new states on terms which do not necessarily have to follow Penang and Malacca which were already members of the Federation when the 1957 Constitution came into force. If the stricter citizenship laws of the other states were applied to Singapore, Singapore would be entitled to not more than 12 seats, since less persons would be eligible for citizenship and consequently for franchise, quite apart from the question of weightage for rural areas. However, after our frank and thorough discussions of all the implications involving Singapore citizenship and merger, I have agreed that all Singapore citizens should keep their present rights and automatically become nationals of the new Federation. Consequently it is felt that representation in the new Federation Parliament should not be based on the total number of such citizens, large numbers of whom would he disenfranchised if the Federation citizenship and representation laws were applied. In this context, may I reiterate that the argument that all Singapore citizens at the time of merger should automatically become Federation citizens cannot find acceptance under our Constitution. I have accordingly agreed, after having given full thought on various aspects of the merger, that Singapore should be entitled to only 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation.' Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that the Member for Anson -

Order, is the Prime Minister going to read another document?

This is another document which I think would assist hon. Members in the debate. The Member for Anson raised certain queries regarding the term "national of the new Federation", and I have sought the opinion of the State Advocate-General for this specific purpose. He has done so in writing and I would like to table it for the benefit of the House.

Order. In that case, I think that would provide a rebuttal of what the Member for Anson said. Perhaps that could be circulated later on. I was going to propose that, in view of these important documents from the Federation as against the legal opinion which can be debated, the adjournment be taken now to enable Members to study these important documents from the Federation. Meanwhile, that legal document could be circulated and the debate could continue on Monday. I think that would be fair to all Members in this Assembly.

As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir. In that case, if you are suggesting an adjournment, may I, for the benefit of the non-legal Members of this House, go through the State Advocate-General's opinion which is a two-page document. I am only suggesting this - Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

Order. The point I am making is that I have permitted this intervention because the matter concerns a different country - the Federation of Malaya. The documents are of some importance for Members to study. But when we come to the legal opinion of the State Advocate-General, which is, of course, subject to debate, I do not think it is proper to allow it to be read at this stage. But if the document is available, I think the Clerk will be able to get copies out to Members tomorrow morning.

As you wish, Sir.

Dr Sheng.

Sir, when I gave way to the Prime Minister, I thought there was something of urgency, but now I notice that the -two documents are dated respectively 11th and 13th of November, and I do not think it was fair of him to interrupt me in the middle of my speech in this House to table documents which are about ten days out of date as something that is urgent. I do wish to continue with my speech till eight o'clock. I do not know what the Standing Orders are and I am asking for advice.

I understand from the Prime Minister that he had the permission of the Tunku only today to table these documents. Am I right?

That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. Today I received a telegram which not only allowed me to disclose those letters to the Assembly, in view of the course that the debate has taken, but I also have the telegram regarding the S.E.A.T.O. bases which I think it is of considerable importance.

As I have said, these letters contain certain information on the points on which the Member himself is touching. He may wish to look at these documents and then reorientate his speech to dovetail with them. It is only a question of dovetailing what the hon. Member is saying with the documents.

In so far as the relevant part of my speech is concerned, I have already covered these points, and I will not be touching on them again. Could I then continue?

I have another suggestion. I do not know whether hon. Members would like to take a vote on the adjournment motion to be moved now.

In the absence of the Leader, may I suggest that the debate should go on? If the hon. Member feels that he wants to go on, I see no reason why he should not do so. I think we are quite happy to sit back and hear him till eight o'clock. I hope you will survive it.

Perhaps some of us are tired and some are not, but I do think that perhaps some Members who have not had the time to study these letters will welcome an adjournment. If there is no Member who will welcome an adjournment, then the Member for Nee Soon can carry on.

Do I carry on?

Yes, certainly.

Thank you. I was talking about the Minister for Culture stretching a point beyond its elastic limit when I was so aptly and expertly interrupted.

Order. The permission of this House was obtained. If any Member had said 'No' when I asked whether there was any objection, then, of course, the Prime Minister would not have been able to read those letters. But since nobody said 'No', I do not think it is fair to intimate that the Prime Minister pulled a fast one. The Speaker just asked the Members whether they had any objection and there was none. Anything can be done with the assent of Members. Dr Sheng.

Mr Speaker, I was the first to give way and I indicated that I would do so. I was talking about the Minister for Culture when I was interrupted. If that does not please you, Sir, I shall withdraw that.

The hon. Member went a little further. He intimated that the Prime Minister had intervened very expertly. I do not think the Member for Nee Soon is fair in alleging that. Dr Sheng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that the Minister for Culture stretched a point beyond its elastic limit when he stated that, by virtue of the proposal of the Barisan Sosialis for automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens, we are giving fuel to the P.M.I.P. to oppose the merger. I said, Sir, that that was a point which was stretched beyond its elastic limit. He might have very well said that in the United States of America any lover of negroes should not advocate their right to fight for equality because in doing so they may well be faced with the possibility of being hanged by the Ku Klux Klan. Indeed, if the Minister for Culture was trying to save the negroes in America, not only would he be likely to be mistaken in identity and hanged by the Ku Klux Klan but he would also be tarred and feathered by the negroes themselves who are only seeking human justice and equal rights with their white brothers. 7.30 p.m.

And the Minister for Culture laboured on second-class citizens equating to second-class citizens. As that point has been adequately covered by the Member for Anson, I shall not labour excessively on it. Suffice it to say that for a monkey in a cage, it is quite possible for the monkey to feel that all the people over the other side of the bar are prisoners, and the monkey itself a free animal. So it is possible for prisoners who are confined to prison to feel that they are free and all those people who are outside are subject to the evil influences of society and are suffering from a loss of freedom. At least in the confines of the prison, one cannot be further intimidated. Outside the confines of the prison, one may very well be further intimidated. So because a prisoner cannot get out but is free to move in the prison, and a free man cannot get in but i; free to move outside the prison, it is not true to say that a prisoner is as free as a free man. That is the logic of the Minister for Culture's argument and I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more than that. It has been established beyond doubt that in the arrangement that we have agreed to, Federal citizens have a right of entry into Singapore for purposes of political association and otherwise, freely, and that Singapore citizens cannot claim the vice versa rights. Even now in the advertisements for Government service jobs, the Singapore Government inserts the words, "Singapore citizens and Federal citizens may apply", whereas a Singapore citizen may not apply for a Government service job in the Federation. And if he should want to go into the Government service in the Federation, he would have to go on contract. This P.A.P. merger will bring about the same state of affairs - that Singapore citizens may not indulge in political affairs in the Federation, whereas Federation citizens will have full political and human rights and all other rights to participate in political or other movements in Singapore. Now, Sir, let me come to the point as to why the P.A.P. persists in perpetuating this confusion, why the P.A.P. is reluctant to call a spade a spade, to call this form of closer association or closer relationship just by its true name. Why does the P.A.P. seek to label a form of association or relationship as merger? It is because the P.A.P. would not like to face the people and to ask them to give it a mandate for this kind of a relationship or association. It is also because it so happens that the P.A.P. in the 1959 elections had written "independence through merger" in their electoral platform. But that merger, Sir, refers to a merger which brings us towards a socialist society, a merger which brings us towards more political freedom. So it is that the P.A.P. try to confuse the picture. Sir, let me come to the reason for this merger. I have said just now that this merger is a political move, a move calculated to retard the expansion of a political system which is not clearly defined. Socialism can easily be labelled or misinterpreted as Communism, and the P.A.P. has said so. The Alliance Government has a right, an honest right, to oppose socialism. But has the P.A.P. a right to oppose the spread of socialism? The P.A.P. claims to be a socialist Party, but if the spread of socialism is to come about in Singapore, the P.A.P. may very well find itself outside the political arena in Singapore. So in order for the P.A.P. to survive in Singapore, where conditions are such that it is inevitable that a Left-wing government or a socialist government only may be returned, I quote, Sir, the 4th Anniversary Souvenir number published in 1958: 'For "one man one vote" regardless of race, class or creed in Malaya and, indeed, anywhere else in economically backward Asia, must result in the election of Governments pledged to the poor and underprivileged peasants and workers who are the overwhelming majority. In other words the outcome of the vote, in the Democratic system of periodic elections by universal franchise, must result in a Government pledge to Socialism. And our party is pledged to help bring this about as soon and as peacefully as possible.' That, Sir, was in 1958. But today, it becomes the selfish interests of the P.A.P. to see that the creed of socialism does not spread, because they can no more represent themselves as a socialist force, because there is another political force in this country which has occupied the place they occupied in 1959 and which has taken over the vacuum which they evacuated by virtue of their Rightist deviation. And if the socialist movement is to be allowed to expand, it is obvious that the P.A.P. will be out of the political arena. So the P.A.P. has its selfish interests to see that socialism is checked.

Communism is checked.

For the benefit of the Prime Minister, Sir, I shall read to him what he wrote in 1958, since he was not here earlier.

The Central Executive committee of the P.A.P.

All right, the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. of 1958: '...the Alliance leaders make no clear distinction between Democratic Socialists and Communists. Anything "Left" is viewed with apprehension, for anything Left is thought to be Communist or potentially Communist.'

Quite right. That is where we come in to clarify.

Ah, ha, that is right! We will clarify that. An hon. Member: A non-Communist is a Communist!

'So any group of men, who are not only anti-Communist but also anti-Socialist and anti any change towards a more egalitarian society, can easily blur the lines between democratic Socialism and Communism.' I know the Prime Minister pretends he is not hearing. Since this is mere repetition, as I have already read that before, I shall not waste my time because he knows this as well as I do. Sir, the P.A.P. has a common interest now to check the spread of socialism. The Alliance Government is honest about it. We respect them, though we disagree with their system. But the P.A.P. is not very honest about it. On the one hand, they want to check the advance of socialism. On the other hand, they have to pretend to be a socialist Party, otherwise they get out of the political arena. So some form of association, some form of a relationship, must be established with the Federation Alliance in order to prop them up. What kind of a relationship? A merger between the P.A.P. and the Federation Alliance? It may fit in very well, but that certainly will spell the doom of the P.A.P. in Singapore, as the results of the Anson by-election have clearly shown. In the Federation it may very well be that the electorate prefers a government led by the Alliance. But in Singapore it is not possible to say that the electorate prefers a government that is Right-wing.

Not possible.

Not possible, because history has shown that any government which toed a Right-wing line moved towards its political doom. So if the P.A.P. can make sure that no other group of political forces is to its Left, then it can claim to be Left although it is a phoney Left. So the P.A.P. embarks upon a relationship with the Federation Alliance and, because it is not possible for the parties to merge, they find a way in which the Governments of the two territories cement their relationship while the Parties remain separate, separate only in name but not separate in deeds, for in a parliamentary democratic system it is the Party that runs the government. And it is their hope that by this form of arrangement, the P.A.P. Government can fix all its political opponents. And who are the political opponents?

The Barisan Sosialis.

Not the S.P.A., because I do not think the Tunku will he very happy if the S.P.A. is fixed, as the S.P.A. forms an alliance with the Federation Alliance, calling it the Four-cornered Alliance. The only possible Party that might be fixed is the Barisan Sosialis, fixed because of their proclaimed genuine socialist line. An hon. Member: Communist line.

Socialist line.

Why don't you call it the Communist line?

Because the analysis in the 4th Anniversary Souvenir shows that a society like Malaya in which there are different races, different creeds, and in which politically they are quite advanced, and economically very well off, the trials and tribulations of the Communist methods which were successful in Soviet Russia and in China are quite unnecessary here, quite unnecessary. We accept that analysis even if the P.A.P. does not accept it anymore. We still go by that analysis. It is as clear and as simple as that. So how does the P.A.P. go about putting us in trouble? An association of Governments but not an association of parties. And it so happens that, fortunately for the P.A.P., the Alliance Government makes no clear distinction between Communists and socialists. Anything that is to the Left is potentially Communist, or Communist, or Communist-inspired, or pro-Communist. And since the Prime Minister in a series of speeches over Radio Singapore proclaimed that all his ex-comrades are either Communists, potential Communists, pro-Communists, or Communist-inspired, it is very easy for the Alliance leader in the Federation to say, "There you are. These people are Communists." But are we Communists? We have been told that if a man is a Communist, it is known only between him and God, and in between him and God there is the Special Branch. Let the Special Branch tell us whether we are Communists. If indeed we were Communists, certainly the strategy the P.A.P. should use to fix us should be different from this one. In Volume 13 of the Legislative Assembly Debates of 3rd August, 1960, column 64, when talking about the strategy of ducking and being ducked, the P.A.P. says: 'But it is useful if we can put these things in perspective, in terms of the ultimate, of the worst and the best, that is possible. What is the worst that can happen in the immediate future for us as a Government? It is that the Government may find itself out-manoeuvred and out-propagandaed [despite Radio Singapore] by these Left-wing adventurers, in which case the P.A.P. will have to take the count in this fight and the Communists will be counted out for many years to come.' That was very good strategy. That was what the P.A.P. proclaimed it would do if it had to oppose the Communists. But unfortunately the P.A.P. knew that neither I nor my colleagues are Communists, and so that strategy is not applicable. So another strategy must be found. It says here, Mr Deputy Speaker: 'We are not unaware what with the Communists on one side of us and the British colonialists on the other, each side will want to pull us to its side. We are also aware that failing this, each of these two contending extremes are quite prepared to use us as buffers in their machinations against each other. ...But it is also the business of the Government to ensure that if a collision has to take place between these Left-wing adventurers and the colonialist imperialists, the P.A.P. should let them break their heads on each other. For we are confident that whatever the temporary manoeuvrings and ups and downs, we as a non-C.P. socialist force have a historic role to play in the political struggle of Malaya in this crucial stage of our history. Our duty is to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of our non-Communist socialist movement, not to be used in other peoples' plots.' If we were Communists, would this not be the ready-made and ready-tailored strategy against us? But we are not Communists. So another strategy has to be found. And what other strategies are there to be found? A ready-made strategy across the Causeway where distinctions are blurred? Very useful. And so we have this merger. When I was talking about proportionate representation, I said that taxes should in no way influence a person's political or human rights. I said that because I heard over the radio the Prime Minister saying that we should have about 18 seats, and because a great deal of money is to be retained for the running of independent educational and labour policies, it becomes necessary in lieu of this independence to give up a number of seats. 7.48 p.m.

Sir, that surely is an argument that may hold water, say, some 300 years ago in feudalistic Europe. But it is surprising, Sir, that today we find self-proclaimed socialists professing the principle of political representation as a direct product of taxation or direct relationship of taxation. That has surprised me very much. Even though the Prime Minister has tabled two letters, I do not see any mention of this bit of his analysis in the letters. That is why I say that what I am going to deal with is quite apart from those letters. Sir, so that we may not be smeared as anti the principle of merger, let me say, in conclusion, that we in the Barisan Sosialis believe in genuine merger and stand committed unconditionally to a merger with the Federation which we define as a complete reunification and genuine integration of the people and the territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. 7.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment in the name of the Member for Queenstown. Originally I had not intended to speak on this motion, but after hearing the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Changi speaking for 7� hours, and using phrases like "treachery", "selling-out", "phoney merger" and so on, I cannot keep quiet. Let me speak on only a few points made by the Member for Queenstown. Before he made any attack on the proposed merger as contained in the White Paper, the Member for Queenstown in commenting on the vacant seats on the Government benches, said that it grieved him to see the vacant seats. I wish to say this to him and his colleagues: if it had not been for the treacherous acts of these 13 Barisan Sosialis Members, he would not have to be grieved. The Barisan Sosialis in this House were elected by the people as representatives of the P.A.P. and not as Barisan Sosialis Members. They have pledged an undertaking in writing, Sir, that whenever they are expelled from the P.A.P. or if they ever resign from the P.A.P., they will resign their seats in this Assembly. These people have not kept their promises. And these are the people who talk about treachery - the same treacherous people. These people, as pointed out by the Member for Cairnhill, have no right to be in this House, and they come and talk about betrayal and treachery and so on. Mr Speaker, Sir, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis mentioned on 20th November that because there was no mention of immediate merger in the P.A.P. booklet - "The Tasks Ahead" - and the Five-Year Plan, we cannot Strive for immediate merger; we should only try to get full internal self-government. The inference is, of course, Sir, that because merger was not an immediate objective of the P.A.P. in 1959, we should only ask for full self-government and not merger. He asks why we are suddenly clamouring for merger. The reason is that it is in our interest and in the interest of the people of Singapore to merge with the Federation at the earliest possible time. If there is no merger immediately, the Communists or the pro-Communists and their agents will try to overthrow the democratic Government in Singapore and they will use Singapore as a base. That is the reason why, as mentioned by the Minister for Culture, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has been convinced that an early merger is necessary and is beneficial to both territories. Now, Sir, let me say a few words about this automatic conversion of all Singapore citizens into Federation citizens. The Barisan Sosialis first wanted a complete merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. The Minister for Health and Law and the Minister for Culture have already explained how and on what terms the citizens of Penang and Malacca were given Federal citizenship on attainment of Merdeka by the Federation of Malaya. It is needless for mc to labour on this point, that if Singapore is to he merged with the Federation on the same basis as Penang and Malacca, then only about 284,000 people will become Federal citizens. But now the Barisan Sosialis have conveniently forgotten the clamour for merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. They now want all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens. It has been said in this House by several Members that if the Federation Government or Parliament wants to agree to this request, it could do so. But it has been said by the Prime Minister that it is unreasonable for us to demand the conversion of all Singapore citizens into Federal citizens. The Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has also said that he could not and would not agree to this request -

Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh. 8.00 p.m.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, when it came into power in June 1959, in its first policy speech said in this Assembly (I am quoting from column 8, Volume 11, No. 1 of Hansard): 'In implementing its declared policy of a unified Trade Union movement, the Labour Ministry is consulting all the main streams of the labour movement to get the widest possible agreement on the structure of the new organisation to be set up. The Government will also cancel registration of splinter and yellow unions after due investigation.' That was a declaration of policy in regard to the unification of the trade unions in Singapore. In an endeavour to unify the trade unions, the Government did say that they were going to deregister splinter and yellow unions. Sir, with that declaration of policy the Government went ahead using the T.U.C., which had already got into the hands of the P.A.P., to gain a stranglehold on the trade unions of Singapore. Not very long after that declaration, we read in the newspapers of "Ten Tall Men" being appointed as Assistant Secretaries to the T.U.C. Their terms of office were to be for five years. Later we found that they could not be removed under the Constitution of the T.U.C. The Ten Tall Men (the tallest man is the Secretary-General of the T.U.C.) went ahead trying to unify the trade union movement for the P.A.P. It was not to unify the trade union movement so as to strengthen the movement as a whole, but to unify the movement for the P.A.P. Sir, a number of organisations were strengthened. In fact, some federations were registered and were later deregistered, and that gave rise to a lot of misgivings and attacks. But the Government quite cleverly said that the deregistration of these federations was as a result of instructions from the Internal Security Council - as if the Internal Security Council interferes in the trade union movement Then in May 1960, nearly a year after the T.U.C. came into power, the Government had its Trade Unions Bill for Second Reading on the 13th of May. During the Second Reading of that Bill, it was pointed out by me and by Members of the Opposition that certain clauses of the Bill were inserted in order to gain control of the trade union movement for a political Party, and that is the Party in power. Of course, at that time there were only eight of us and there were 43 on the other side. They just ridiculed and laughed and said, "We don't worry about the Opposition. Who is the Opposition? We are the Government with 43 strong men and a great majority in this Assembly. We can do what we want." And so they went ahead trying to gain control of the workers of Singapore in trade unions for the benefit of the P.A.P. But suddenly, Sir, the Government must by then have smelt something going on that was not according to the P.A.P. pattern. The Ten Tall Men did not respond, as it had been thought that they would respond, to the P.A.P.'s scheme of gaining control. Therefore, in spite of the fact that this Bill was pushed through this Assembly without even referring it to a Select Committee - pushed through the Assembly on the 13th of May by the Government in its desire to capture the trade union movement for the Party in power - that Bill was never assented to by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. No reasons were given why the Bill was not assented to. I looked up the Constitution of Singapore, Sir, and I must say that I could not find in it the power whereby the Yang di-Pertuan Negara could refuse to give assent to a Bill that has been passed in this Assembly. Of course, there are certain reserved powers, but those reserved powers are in connection with defence and external relations, and have nothing to do with trade unions So the Government, in its rush to capture the trade union movement, found it was caught in between by the Ten Tall Men who were quite tall. In fact, they were growing taller and taller, getting out of reach of the P.A.P., and the Government suddenly felt that this Bill must not be assented to. Sir, I do not know. It could have advised the Yang di-Pertuan Negara not to give his assent to the Bill. Well, that is that. Then, as to be expected, trouble started in the P.A.P. itself. Then we had a spectacle a few months ago (in July 1961, I think) of the disintegration of the P.A.P., so much so that even before the Barisan Sosialis came into existence, here was the great Secretary-General of the T.U.C. who is now, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. I must say this, Sir, and I would ask the Government to consider - and consider properly - that it is not right that a Parliamentary Secretary of a Government should be the Secretary-General of a trade union organisation, particularly of such a union as the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees who are the servants of the Government. Here is a representative of the masters getting into a union of employees and saying that they are the great champions of the employees. And yet the Government, Sir, was very fond of saying yellow unions, yellow unions. I do not know what kind of a union one would call the A.U.P.E. which has as its Secretary-General a Parliamentary Secretary. I would say in this House, Sir, that it must be the greatest yellow union in Singapore. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Sir, when that failed, the Secretary-General of the T.U.C., in other words, the Parliamentary Secretary now to the Minister for Culture - Culture, mind you, the whole time it is culture! - told the Minister for Labour (at that time he was the Minister for Labour but now he is the Minister for Health and Law), "I say, terrible, terrible, man! Cannot control! Dissolve T.U.C.!" I do not know on what authority - just one man to come and say, "Dissolve the T.U.C." And that is that. Yet they say they are the champions of a democratic trade union movement. One man suddenly got the jitters because he found that all that he had hoped to do for the P.A.P. was lost because the struggle to gain the hearts and minds of the workers had already gone the other way. Suddenly, there was this heading - when I say it I had a laugh - on page 16, the Straits Times, Wednesday, 26th July, 1961, "Byrne to dissolve the T.U.C." and "Kandasamy to organise new set-up". Yet, Sir, in the Press release it was admitted by the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. that the present Constitution of the T.U.C. had never been registered. It is wonderful, Sir. So if one could just be a Parliamentary Secretary or belong to the P.A.P., one could do anything against the law because the Government will not take action. The Constitution of the T.U.C. had never been registered and yet the T.U.C. was all-owed to function for so many months! The next day on 27th July, it is Byrne again - "Unified Unions Policy Will go on - Byrne". It said here on the front page, "Mr Byrne agreed with Mr Kandasamy [how could he do anything but agree?] that the present Constitution of the T.U.C. had not been registered and could not legally be registered under the present Trades Union Ordinance,". And yet this T.U.C. was allowed to function for so many months under a Constitution that could not legally be registered. The Minister for Health and Law please take note!

He has gone home!

The Constitution could not be legally registered and yet the T.U.C. was allowed to function. So it is clear to us, Sir, that the P.A.P. is just making use of the workers movement for its own political ends. But, of course, the Government was quite clever. It gave a sop, you know, a little sugar, "We give you a Trade Union House. Never mind, your T.U.C. can go. In the meantime, before the House is built in Shenton Way, take back the poor Natina Home In Queen Street and have it. Have all the fun!" I would ask the Minister this: who are now the occupants of that house? It is still occupied by the now dissolved T.U.C. coming under a different name? What is it - National Trade Union Centre? What is in a name after all? I would ask the Government to consider properly and to remember that they cannot use the funds of the people of Singapore to achieve their awn party political ends. An hon. Member: That is right.

And yet, the Minister for Labour and Law, in reply to a question by the Member for Anson on the unification of unions, said, "No legislation can be introduced to unify the trade union movement because of the present split in the movement here." Sir, it is because of a split that one must unify. Yet they say that because there is a split one should not unify, What was meant by that was that the Government will not want to make any move to unify the unions because the Government does not think that the workers of Singapore are foolish enough to put their trust in organisations or trade union organisations which are under the control of P.A.P. Assemblymen, Parliamentary Secretaries, and a lot of things P.A.P. Now coming to A.U.P.E. - Amalgamated Union of Public Employees - here is also an attempt to unify the trade union movement. When the P.A.P. came into power, they had a brain-wave. "Ah, ha, we are going to be the masters! Since we have been helping the Government unions to fight against the government of the day, it would be better for us now to control the Government unions before they come and start fighting us." So they had this brain-wave of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees. There was an attempt made to Let all the unions of Government employees into one amalgamated union under the great leadership of the great trade unionist who is now the Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Culture. What did this Amalgamated Union of Public Employees - A.U.P.E. - do? They tried to force Government employees to join up with the A.U.P.E. and the Government not only countenanced it but encouraged it. Take the case of the partial restoration of the pay cuts. Instead of negotiating with the Staff Side, the Minister for Finance negotiated with the great Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E. for partial restoration and reached agreement with him. Not only did he reach agreement, but he issued circulars to all employees of the public service saying, "Thou shall not get this partial restoration unless thou art a member of the A.U.P.E." What is this? This is all wrong. This is the P.A.P. way of building up a trade union movement to strengthen the trade union movement to look after the welfare of the workers. It is unbelieveable. All this is for the P.A.P. Then, all right, partial restoration. As a result of that, Sir, I understand there were many, many civil servants who became members of A.U.P.E. just to get that partial restoration. Then suddenly, because of this great integration idea of the P.A.P., the City Council had to be scrapped because the Mayor and the City Councillors had absconded and contested the elections. The City Council had to be scrapped and the employees of the City Council had to be integrated. Sir, there has been far many, many years a City Council Labour Unions Federation to which the Prime Minister was a very able adviser. I think he led them in two strikes. But when integration took place, the Government made some attempt to close down this Federation and said, "Boys, since you are being integrated, join the A.U.P.E." Fortunately, the workers of the City Council were not so easily intimidated. They fought and they sent in a strike notice to the Government saying, "We want to help ourselves. You can change our name if you like. You can change it to the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation." At that time, I think it was a different Minister who said, "Oh, no, you cannot have it." But fortunately because of the solidarity of the workers of the City Council, they won the day. But now because of the rivalry between the A.U.P.E. and the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation, there was a strike. I must congratulate the Minister for Labour for having settled this strike. They go back to work tomorrow. But then they have been on strike for more than 20 days. Singapore was in a real mess. There was dirt in some places. You will remember, Sir, that when the Government came into power in 1959, even the Prime Minister rolled up his sleeves and swept Tanjong Pagar - which was all for propaganda. The Prime Minister, other Ministers and P.A.P. Assemblymen swept the roads. Why? For propaganda! But during the period of the strike, if they had any sympathy or feelings for the people of Singapore [Interruption] they should have been sweeping the roads in Tanjong Pagar [Interruption]

Order.

They have not done so because they have become rubbish themselves and they will be swept away very soon. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Serjeant-at-Arms, if there is any more levity in the Strangers' Gallery, the strangers will have to be removed.

They did not go out sweeping because they know that they will be swept out themselves. Let that be. Now the A.U.P.E., Sir. The A.U.P.E. have already shown that they are not a yellow Union. Therefore, while the strike was going on, there was the great Kandasamy saying in the Free Press -

Order.

- "We will -

Order. I think the Member for Cairnhill is encouraging this levity by his speech. If he will be a little more serious and talk seriously, we will not have this levity. Tun Lim.

Thank you very much for your guidance, Sir,It is in the Free Press: "Government Staff May Strike - Warning By Kandasamy" - the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Imagine an employer giving warning to himself and saying that the staff may go on strike! As if that was not enough, you have another one. I think it was Mr Devan Nair who said, "Oh, unions should not take part in politics." I do not know why after 2� years of playing politics in trade unions they now come out to say, "Oh unions should not take part in politics. Unions should not be vehicles of any party ideology." They have been trying to get the trade unions to be a party to the P.A.P. ideology for the past 2� years. But when they find now that they can, not control the unions any more, they say, "Do not be bluffed by other trade unionists." Sir, as a trade unionist, I say in all sincerity that in order to strengthen the trade union movement the trade unions must be unified. When they are unified, the trade union movement should not be made use of by the party in power. 8.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill, who was the Minister for Labour and Social Welfare in the last Government, knows - as everybody knows - that the conditions then prevailing in the trade unions, particularly in the Trades Union Congress, were in a mess. There is hardly any time - with nine minutes to go - to go into details, but I will touch only on the major criticisms re garding the T.U.C. and the accusation made by the Member for Cairnhill that the A.U.P.E. is a Government-sponsored union. Mr Speaker, Sir, after the P.A.P. Government assumed office, the Singapore Trades Union Congress was revived - let me make it quite clear - not by the Government but by the Singapore Trades Union Congress' affiliated unions themselves in response to the Government's call for unifying and strengthening the trade union movement in Singapore. Sometime about the end of April 1960, the S.T.U.C. convened a Special Delegates Congress under its registered rules - that is, the old rules. At that meeting, a new constitution was adopted in anticipation of the coming into force of the new Trade Union Ordinance. Subsequently, new officers were elected and nine secretaries were appointed by the newly-elected Secretary General in accordance with the provisions of the new constitution. This new constitution has never been submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions for registration as it is not registerable under the existing Trade Union Ordinance. The Singapore Trades Union Congress continued to function under this unregistered constitution until the middle of this year. Then its leadership split into the groups and the S.T.U.C. was abandoned. These are all facts, Mr Speaker. The group led by Mr Lim Chin Siong and his friends lost no time in forming a new body called S.A.T.U. Other trade unions which do not have similar aims as those of Mr Lim Chin Siong and his friends then came forward to form the so-called National Trade Union Congress - the N.T.U.C. Both these two new bodies have applied for registration and their applications are still under consideration. The Government has been accused of arbitrarily dissolving the S.T.U.C. - as the Member for Cairnhill has suggested. I think this is just another attempt to mislead and confuse the people. The fact is that Government has not dissolved the S.T.U.C. because it cannot do so under the law. Under the Trade Union Ordinance, the dissolution of a registered trade union - and the S.T.U.C. is a registered trade union - can only be effected voluntarily by the union itself in accordance with its own constitution. From time to time, allegations have been made that the A.U.P.E. is a Government-sponsored union and that the A.U.P.E. is backed by the P.A.P. at the expense of other unions. These allegations are not only misleading but mischievous.

That is why they go on strike.

Now let me give some facts about the emergence of the A.U.P.E. I got the official facts from my Ministry. About three months after the assumption of office of the P.A.P. Government in June 1959, the Singapore Union of Postal and Telecommunications Workers and the Postal Telecommunications Uniformed Staff Union effected a voluntary amalgamation and gave birth to the A.U.P.E. which was registered on 26.9.

59. Two months later, another amalgamation was effected between the A.U.P.E. and six other unions. They are the Singapore City Council Services Union, the Singapore Telephone Board Employees Union, the Woodbridge Hospital Uniformed Staff Union, the Singapore Laboratory Technicians Union, the Government Public Health Inspectors Union and the Public Works Labour Union. The parties to the second amalgamation again chose the A.U.P.E. as the name of the amalgamated body. This second amalgamation was registered on 16.11.

59. In the first half of 1960, the Singapore Midwives Union, the Singapore Fire Brigade Employees Union and the Central Provident Fund Staff Association dissolved themselves voluntarily and transferred their membership to the A.U.P.E. The amalgamated unions which form the A.U.P.E. are amongst the oldest unions in Singapore, one being registered as far back as in 1946 and three in 1947. One of the amalgamated unions, the Public Works Labour Union registered in May 1947, has been representing the daily-rated workers in Government departments for the past 13 years. This right of representation was transferred to the A.U.P.E. upon amalgamation. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the above facts, the people can judge for themselves whether or not the A.U.P.E. is a Government-sponsored union or a splinter union. Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime in May 1960, when I was still the Minister for Health, we sought the assistance of the Labour Ministry to arrange for secret ballots to be held to settle the question of union representation of the grades of staff in the Health Ministry: assistant nurses, almoners, appliance makers, male nurses, Division IV personnel, excluding the Woodbridge Hospital uniformed staff. Subsequently, the Singapore Medical Services Union and the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees settled amicably between themselves the question of union representation in respect of the grades of staff mentioned above. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, both the A.U.P.E. and the Singapore Medical Workers Union wanted to contest the right of representation of Division IV personnel attached to all the institutions and branches of the Health Ministry other than Woodbridge Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital. A secret ballot was therefore held from 10th to 19th January, 1961, among the Division IV officers concerned to decide which of the two unions they would wish to have represent them. The secret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Registrar of Trade Unions. I think everybody knows the result. As regards the Public Daily-Rated Employees Union, I am happy to say that the question of union recognition has been discussed during the last few days and I am also glad to say that they have reached a settlement and that the question of union recognition will be dealt with in the shortest possible time.

Order. The time appointed for the termination of the sitting has arrived. Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at 8.30 p.m. to Monday, 27th November, 1961.