Hansard, 1961-11-27

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore), Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House - from 26th November to 3rd December, 1961.

(Assent to Bill passed)

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the 25th November, 1961, he assented to the Control of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the House is fully aware of the fact that the first Government Secondary IV Examination in the Chinese medium is now in progress, despite an attempted boycott of the Examination I should like to indicate that I shall be making a fuller statement later today at 5.30 p.m. since reports are still coming in.

I take it that that would meet with the assent of all Members that this statement be made at 5.30 p.m.? No dissenting voice.

"to provide for the holding of a national referendum and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available Sitting day after December 1961, and to be printed.

2.34 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [21st November, 1961] to Question [20th November, 1961], "That, whereas it has always been the avowed objective of all nationalists of Malaya to achieve the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya and to remove the artificial division created by the British by their policy of "divide and rule", this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya."-(The Minister for Labour-Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim). Which Amendment was, 'To leave out from "a" in the second last line to the end and insert: "genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day".'-(Dr Lee Siew Choh). Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 2.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on Friday I was saying that the Barisan Sosialis were first asking for full and complete merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. But now, when they are told that complete merger on that basis will not enable all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens, they do not mention any more of Penang and Malacca but ask for automatic conversion of all Singapore citizens into Federal citizens. Our Prime Minister has already said that it is unreasonable for us to put up such demands. I would like to show an example to the Barisan Sosialis how it is unreasonable. Suppose two brothers came from a Commonwealth country to Malaya in 1955. One brother settled in Singapore. The other brother settled in Johore Bahru. In 1957, Singapore citizenship laws came into being. In 1957 the brother in Singapore, who had already lived in Singapore for two years, became a Singapore citizen. Now, on the Barisan type of merger, he would become a Federal citizen on the attainment of merger. But the brother who came to Johore Bahru at the same time as his counterpart came to Singapore, and who had lived the same number of years would not be able to become a Federal citizen. But the brother in Singapore would become a Federal citizen. Is this reasonable or unreasonable? Let the Barisan Sosialis say it. Is it not unreasonable to grant citizenship to one man and refuse it to the other when both have the same qualifications? Mr Speaker, Sir, it was alleged by the Members for Queenstown and Changi that after merger on the terms set out in the White Paper, Singapore citizens will become second-class citizens. In what way will Singapore citizens become second-class citizens? It is no use one speaker after another repeating this falsehood without showing how the Singapore citizen will become a second-class citizen. The only reason the Barisan Sosialis have put forward is that Singapore citizens cannot vote or stand for election to the Federal Parliament in the Federation. Federal citizens also cannot vote or stand for election to the Federal Parliament in Singapore. Why then is one citizen inferior to the other? If they say the Singapore citizen is second-class, it can also be said that the Federal citizen is also second-class. I know that the Minister for Culture has dealt with this point, but even after the Minister's speech, the Barisan Sosialis keep on repeating the unfounded allegation that Singapore citizens are second-class, so that they hope that if this is repeated again and again by all their 13 Members and published in the Press, people who read it can be misled into believing what they say is true. The Member for Changi said citizenship was a fundamental right of the people. Who says it is not? He says after the merger proposed in the White Paper this right will be taken away. How will it be taken away? The Member for Queenstown also said on 21st November (Straits Times, 22nd November), "It means, in the first place, that if a Singapore citizen goes to the Federation after the P.A.P. phoney merger, he will become disenfranchised and will not be allowed to vote or to stand for election in the Federation." What a deliberate falsehood. Even now, if a Singapore citizen goes to the Federation, he will not lose his Singapore citizenship. Is it anywhere stated that he will lose his Singapore citizenship right, if he goes to the Federation after merger? All these deliberate falsehoods are uttered to mislead the people and mobilise agitation for merger. It is true that if a Singapore citizen goes to the Federation, he will not be allowed to vote or stand for election in the Federation, but he will never lose his Singapore citizenship rights. He will not become disenfranchised. If a Singapore citizen wants to become a Federal citizen, that is a different matter. In the same way, if a Federal citizen comes to Singapore and wants to become a Singapore citizen, he has to apply for it. The Barisan Sosialis' main object is nothing but to oppose merger. That is why they allege all these falsehoods, so that they can get the people to believe that the people are losing their rights. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I am going to state, how insincere, vicious and mischievous they are in their utterances. The Member for Changi on Friday said that by the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens, if they want to stand for election, have to have a knowledge of English or Malay, after merger, or else they cannot stand for election. This is true only to the extent of Federal Parliament elections. But the Member went on to say that now, knowledge of Chinese is sufficient, but after the P.A.P. merger, people who know only Chinese cannot stand for election to the Federal Parliament. He said so, Sir. It is not reported in the Straits Times, but it might have been reported in the Chinese Press. What is the real intention of this allegation? The intention is to say that the P.A.P. is taking away the right of the Chinese-educated to stand for election. Now, let the Barisan Sosialis tell us, according to the complete merger they are asking for, can a man who does not know English or Malay stand for Federal election? At least, with autonomy in Singapore's domestic affairs, according to the White Paper proposals, there will be a multilingual Singapore Legislature. If it is a complete merger, there will not be a multilingual Singapore Legislature. They will have only a bilingual Legislative Assembly or Council as in Penang. The Member for Queenstown on 20th November, talked about what citizenship means and what are the benefits the citizen will get, besides the right to vote. It is also true that only citizens can get permanent employment in Government; only citizens can be given land for resettlement; only citizens can apply for Housing and Development Board flats; only citizens can get legal aid and public assistance; only citizens are given passports; and only citizens cannot be banished. He also said that only children of citizens are given preference to others in schools and in getting scholarships. Thus, he was telling this House of the importance of citizenship. Then he went on to say, "If merger is to have any meaning, then Singapore citizens must become Federal citizens. Only then will Singapore citizens have the opportunity of sharing all these benefits." He then suggested that if a Singapore citizen does not become a Federal citizen, he will lose all his rights. How will a Singapore citizen Jose all his rights if he does not become a Federal citizen? He never said how. Will Singapore citizens be refused employment in the Government service? Will they be refused public assistance and legal aid'? Will they not get Housing and Development flats? He did not quote one single instance of how Singapore citizens will lose any of these rights if they do not become Federal citizens after merger. He calls the proposals in the White Paper a betrayal, treachery, sell-out, phoney merger, and so on. Even the Member for Anson - though he supports the amendment for various reasons - admits that the proposals are the best in the circumstances. He even complimented, Sir. The only thing he said is that it is not a merger. But the Barisan Sosialis say that all this is a sell-out and they call for general elections. They ask us to resign. I would like to tell the Members of the Barisan Sosialis once again that they were elected to this Assembly on the P.A.P. ticket and that they had pledged to resign if they were ever expelled. Let them honour their word. They cannot just say that they represent the public and that the people are with them. If they really want to know whether the public are with them in their demand for a complete merger with autonomy in domestic affairs, such as education, social welfare, labour, trade, and so on, they should resign their seats and prove their support. I remember the Member for Changi said the other day - though it was not reported in the Straits Times - that they were elected not because of the P.A.P. leaders but because of the socialists in the Barisan Sosialis who were then in the P.A.P. Except for the Members for Thomson, Havelock, Toa Payoh and Moulmein, none of the present Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen were ever heard of before 1959. At that time, the present important non-Assemblymen leaders of the Barisan Sosialis were in prison. I stress that they were elected on the record of the P.A.P. under the present leadership and not on any other thing. Those who do not honour their word stabbed us in the back at the time of a crucial by-election and helped an opponent to win his election. It is too much to expect of them, Sir! The Barisan Sosialis talk of complete merger in this House. But what do they do outside? Their rank and file and their agents go to the ordinary people and propagate that if there is merger the people of Singapore will have to wear sarongs, songkoks, accept Islam as their religion, Malay as their only language, and so on, thus frightening the people. Even this morning, Sir, their people were going around in front of my house and putting up posters all over the place agitating for this 4:2 education system. These are the people who say that the people will accept the Federation's education policy. Is this the way they are going to persuade the people of Singapore to accept the Federation's education and labour policies in a complete merger?

On a point of order. What is the basis for these allegations?

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

Read the Standing Orders.

Order.

On 23rd November, the Member for Changi said: 'In the State today, the masses were openly decrying the P.A.P. Government. In coffee-shops and hawker-stalls, the people were highly critical of the Government.' It is not true. It is these Barisan Sosialis men who talk of one thing in this House and then go to the people to instigate them with all sorts of lies against merger. An hon. Member: The Straits Times!

Order. I do not know whether the word "lies" was used with reference to Members of this Assembly. If it was, then the hon. Member must withdraw the word.

I was mentioning the agents who work. It is not true that the people do not like merger as proposed in the White Paper. It is these Barisan Sosialis men who tell the people falsehoods about citizenship, education and labour, and try to confuse them and arouse their emotional feelings. Even in this House the Member for Queenstown (the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis) asked a lot of questions. What is the purpose of asking these questions when they know full well that the people will be better off and they will have nothing to complain about in a merger as proposed in the White Paper than in a merger as proposed by the Barisan Sosialis'? Their purpose is to create an impression in the minds of the people that they will suffer under the White Paper proposals. When the Minister for Culture was saying the same thing, the Member for Havelock asked the Minister to answer them as though the answers will show the people that they will suffer. T shall answer the questions, Sir. Let them see in what way the people will suffer because of the merger. The questions are in the Straits Times of 22nd November in a speech made by the Member for Queenstown. Question No. 1 reads: "What would the civil servants gain with merger'? Would they get more opportunities for promotion in a wider service under the same terms existing or under better terms? Would promotion be accelerated?" If there is complete merger - as proposed by the Barisan Sosialis -recruitment into the civil service will be in the 4: 1 ratio as in the Federation. But according to the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens will have equal rights and opportunities for recruitment. The Member for Anson came to their rescue and tried to tell us that this will not affect us as this ratio relates only to the Federal service and not to the State service. The Deputy Prime Minister has cleared this point by pointing out the departments that will be left in the State service after merger. Except for the Land Office, no other big department will be in the State service. Therefore, in a complete merger, the majority of the civil servants will be affected. Questions 2 and 3 read: "Would bus companies be allowed to operate freely on new routes in the Federation? Would they be treated equally as others? Would contractors get the same opportunities for business in the Federation as in Singapore?" The same argument as for the civil service will apply to these questions also. Bus companies in Singapore will have their present rights in Singapore in the White Paper proposals. But in a complete merger, the same practice in the Federation will have to apply to Singapore bus companies also. Which will benefit them more - complete merger or merger with autonomy in domestic affairs? Contractors who are Singapore citizens will have preference over the Federal citizens in getting jobs in Singapore. Federal citizens will get preference in the Federation. In a complete merger, certain type of contracts, even in Singapore, will have to be given to Malays. Let the Barisan Sosialis remember that there is a policy in the Federation by which certain types of contracts are to he given only to the indigenous people of Malaya. Question No. 4 reads: "Would Singapore citizens be able to apply for jobs in the Federation after merger? Would they be discriminated against because they are not Federal citizens?" Even now Singapore citizens are able to apply for jobs in both territories. Federal citizens are also able to apply for jobs in both territories. Preference may be given to Singapore citizens in the Singapore Government and to Federal citizens in the Federal Government. After merger, arrangements will be made to all Federal nationals to be given preference in both territories. Question No. 5 reads: "Would the products of Singapore schools and universities he allowed to apply for jobs in the Federation?" Here at the present moment, there is no denial of this right. I do not know why the Member for Queenstown thinks otherwise. Questions 6 and 7 ask whether all Singapore citizens would accept the security risk of moving about freely in the Federation. Except for the people who will try to undermine the democratic Government in the Federation, all people will be allowed to move about freely. Question No. 8 reads: "Would students from Singapore schools and universities - particularly Nanyang University - have the right to travel freely in the Federation?" If there is to be a complete merger without autonomy in domestic affairs, there may not be Nanyang University and no such question would then arise. Questions 9, 10, 11 and 12 - all the same reply, Sir. When there is autonomy in labour with different labour laws in the Federation and Singapore, it is only natural that there will be separate bodies of trade unions. But if there is to be a complete merger, are the Barisan Sosialis prepared to accept the same labour laws as in the Federation? Let them say clearly that they will accept the Federation's education policy, the Rahman Talib Report on Education, and so on. The Barisan Sosialis also know, of course, that non-Federal citizens cannot hold office in any territory in the Federation. Non-Federal citizens will not be made leaders as in Singapore after merger, if it is going to be a complete merger. About businessmen, they ask, "Will they have equal opportunities?" Even now businessmen are enjoying equal opportunities. There is no inequality in the rights of businessmen in Singapore and the Federation. What make the Barisan Sosialis think that there will be a difference after merger? I do not know. As I said earlier, Mr Speaker, these questions are put only to confuse the people and leave an impression that the people will lose their rights after merger, thus getting them to oppose merger. The Member for Changi has been repeating the same thing - unequal rights. Where are the unequal rights? In what way are the citizens of the two territories unequal? Let them point out one instance. And without any substantiation, all this propaganda will only mean that they are opposed to merger. And they are putting up these unreasonable demands and obstacles only to sabotage merger. Before ending my speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me deal with certain points raised by the Member for Anson who unfortunately is not in this Chamber at the moment. On the question of equal treatment for all the four streams of education, he admitted that there was a radical divergence in the Federation education policy, and if the people of Singapore did not wish to perpetuate this difference, a Federal Act could easily provide for the maintenance and administration of the existing education policy in Singapore. What does this mean? This means that he wants a different education policy for Singapore. Instead of mingling words and misleading the people, can he not acknowledge that this is what the P.A.P. wants by retaining autonomy in education? He said that a Federal Act could easily be passed. Of course, he knows - he is a renowned lawyer - as well as we do, that to do this, there should be a majority of Members of Parliament to agree to any enactment of any Act or law. Suppose after merger we do not get a majority to agree to pass this Act. What will happen? Is the Member for Anson prepared to forget about it? He personally may. Will the people of Singapore agree to this? That is why we ask for autonomy in education beforehand. And for labour also, the Member for Anson said, "Even if Singapore had full labour legislation and policies, there was nothing to prevent the Federal Government authorising the State Government here to exercise responsibility in this field." What does this also mean? Does this not mean autonomy in labour? He says, "Let us have complete merger", and then says, "Let the State Government be authorised to exercise responsibility in this field." Why has he got to mislead the people in this way instead of accepting autonomy on labour, education, and so on? He might as well say, "Let us have complete merger, and then pass Acts in the Federal Parliament providing the Singapore Government to exercise responsibility in internal security as well." Why stop at that? Pass Acts in the Federal Parliament to transfer full responsibility for defence and external affairs of the whole of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore to the Singapore Legislature so that the Barisan Sosialis can change the foreign policy of Malaya to suit them. Then the Member for Anson and his friends in the Barisan Sosialis will be very, very happy. Lastly, the Member for Anson wanted to know for a fact the number of Communists in Singapore and whether there are really so many Communists in this State. I would like to remind him of his days in the year 1956 when he was Chief Minister of Singapore, and when there were the Hock Lee riots, and he introduced the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to replace the Emergency Regulations. If there were no Communists in this State, why did he introduce the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance? Has he forgotten the Hock Lee riots? Who instigated those riots? Who were behind them? Are the very same people not living amongst us, or have they disappeared? This is one instance, Sir. Another instance. After the Tanjong Pagar and Cairnhill by-elections in 1957, the present Member for Anson said that he had retired from politics. And at the end of 1957 the Workers' Party was formed with Mr Chang Yuen Thong as Vice-Chairman. The Workers' Party won three out of four seats in the City council, and with an overwhelming majority. Then, as we were told by the Prime Minister in one of his talks over Radio Singapore, Chang Yuen Thong resigned from the Workers' Party and the City Council. When Chang Yuen Thong resigned, there was a by-election in Kallang. The Workers' Party candidate who contested. the Kallang by-election got only 300 odd votes.

Order. Can the Member help the Chair by indicating how this is relevant to the motion? Is it relevant to Communism?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson asked the other day whether there were Communists or whether there were too many Communists in Singapore.

Order. I have asked the Member to explain.

I am only trying to explain that there are Communists in Singapore at the moment.

Yes, I understand that. But have these by-elections anything to do with Communism? I really do not understand that.

I am going to prove that. Sir. They contested the elections and won an overwhelming majority in December 1957.

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may. Mr Speaker, is it not a point of order where the Member misrepresents completely a statement made in this House? If it is not, then it is not a point of order.

It is not a point of order. But, of course, the hon. Member will have his opportunity if he has been misunderstood or misrepresented. There is a Standing Order which enables the Member or any Member to correct the misunderstanding, and that is Standing Order 43, paragraph (4) : 'A Member who has spoken to a question may again he heard to offer an explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; hut he shall not introduce any new matter.' If the hon. Member feels he has been misunderstood in a material part of his speech. then he may speak again after the Parliamentary Secretary has ceased to speak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1958 Chang Yuen Thong resigned from the Workers' Party, as told to us by the Prime Minister in one of his talks. He met the "Plen", and the Plen said he would instruct Chang Yuen Thong to resign from the Workers' Party and the City Council. And it was carried out. I am just saying these things to prove that the events related to us by the Prime Minister are all true, and that there are Communists in Singapore. The Workers' Party candidate who contested the Kallang by-election got only 300-odd votes.

Order. Is the inference, therefore, that those who did not vote for the Workers' Party were Communists? Is that what the hon. Member is indicating?

What I am saying is that in 1957 Communists infiltrated into the Workers' Party and they helped the Workers' Party to win in so many elections with an overwhelming majority. In 1958 they deserted the Workers' Party and that was why the candidate who stood for election got only 300-odd votes. That is what I am trying to explain, Sir. Where had all the support for the Workers' Party in 1957 gone, 111 1958? How does the Member for Anson explain the sudden rise and fall of the Workers' Party in those years? If he does not agree with the Prime Minister's version of the events which led to the resignation of Chang Yuen Thong, how does he explain it? Do not all these facts prove the existence of Communists in this State?

Who said this?

Lastly, may I end this speech by asking the Barisan Sosialis on the Opposition Benches to take note of all these events? Think of the future of Singapore. If they want a real unification of Singapore and the Federation, do not call the people of the Federation of Malaya Manchurians and so on. Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi) rose -

Point of order?

Point of explanation, Sir.

If the Member will give way. He has not given way.

Take the White Paper proposals as a first step towards the reunification of both territories. Therefore, I say to this House that we should reject this amendment, Sir.

A personal explanation, Sir, under the Standing Order you have referred to.

Order. I think the hon. Member is once again late. Under Standing Order 10, paragraph (1) (n), personal explanations, if any, must be made before Public business, and we are now on Public business. 3.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, despite the fact that we have been debating this vital issue of merger for more than five days, we have people who are as confused as ever in the maze of arguments, counter arguments, and counter-counter arguments, as what we have the counterpart in power politics, the development of missiles, anti-missiles, and anti-anti-missiles. In my speech, therefore, as far as I can, I am avoiding reference to the legal technicalities of the Federation Constitution, or making quotations from it. I will also try to refrain from delving into the details of the White Paper at this stage. Since there has been so much confusion on this subject of merger, I think it is important that we should discuss the issue dispassionately and without personal rancour or bitterness. Electioneering techniques or mass meeting techniques will not help us to clarify the issue. There have been doubts and confusion on this issue. Sir, the confusion has been partly due to the introduction of personalities into this subject and the petty squabbles during the past few months. All along we have remained silent because we do not want to be involved in these petty squabbles. The doubts have been due mainly to the way the Government brought forward its so-called merger proposals. You will remember, Sir, that the Government rejected merger talks with the Federation when they were requested to do so in one of the 16 Hong Lim Resolutions. As far as I can see, it was only after the Hong Lim by-election that the Government commenced constitutional talks with the Federation. Sir, there are broadly three types of views on merger. Firstly, there are those who support the principle of complete merger. Secondly, there are those who accept the proposal of the Government for - for want of a better name - I will call a tiga suku merger. In the third group are those who are opposed to any form of association with the Federation. We can now ignore this third group, because, for obvious reasons, nobody in this third group dares to come out openly to say that he is opposed to merger. Sir, there have been many interpretations of what is complete merger. What is complete merger? If we have complete merger, if Singapore accepts complete merger, we would he like the State of Johore. All Singapore citizens could become Federal citizens. We could vote about 21 candidates, as the Minister for Health and Law has calculated - and this we will not argue or dispute at the moment - to the Federal Parliament. This figure of 21 can be worked out later whether it is correct or not. Now, if there is complete merger, we would have, at the same time, a Singapore State Government, like the present Johore State Government, with a Chief Minister and an Executive Council. What are the powers of the present State Government in Johore? They have jurisdiction over the following subjects: (1) Muslim law; (2) Land matters; (3) Agriculture and forestry; (4) Local Government; (5) Other services of a local character like fire-brigade, burial grounds and markets; (6) State public works and water supply; (7) Machinery of the State Government and a few other minor and unimportant subjects. In other words, if we have complete merger, the Singapore State Government would have jurisdiction in land matters and local government. The other subject matters are of not much importance. The Johore State Government has also concurrent jurisdiction over matters like social welfare, parks, hawkers, public health, drainage and a few other minor subjects. By concurrent jurisdiction, we mean that the State Government has jurisdiction, at the pleasure, more or less, of the Federation Government. In short, under complete merger, all Singapore citizens would become Federal citizens, electing about 21 representatives to the Federal Parliament, and also representatives to a Singapore State Assembly, which will form the Singapore State Government. The Federal Parliament would have much power and the Singapore State Assembly would have very little power. Sir, there have been arguments on all sides about what is complete merger. I say to all Members who do not understand what is complete merger, that the best thing is either to cross the Causeway and stay in Johore Bahru for a few days, or ask Federal citizens what it is like to live as a Federal citizen in Johore Bahru - what are his rights, duties, and obligations, and how does the Johore State Government work? Now, we come to the P.A.P. proposed merger. This is what we say a tiga suku merger. These are constitutional proposals put forward by the Singapore Government in White Paper No. Cmd. 33 of 1961. Under this scheme, there would be two distinct types of citizenship, Federal citizenship and Singapore citizenship. Federal citizens who come and live in Singapore do not enjoy the rights and privileges nor share the obligations of Singapore citizens. Similarly, Singapore citizens who go and live in the Federation would not enjoy the rights and privileges of Federal citizens nor share the obligations of Federal citizens. The two types of citizenship are quite distinct. Federal citizens voting in the Federation in their capacity as Federal nationals, that is, according to the State Advocate-General's latest explanation, could send about 100 representatives to the Central Federal Parliament. Singapore citizens voting in Singapore, in their capacity as Federal nationals, could send 15 representatives to this same Central Federal Parliament. The majority Party in this Central Federal Parliament could form the Central Government. If Federal citizens come and live and work in Singapore, they cannot stand as candidates; neither can they vote for candidates to this Federal Parliament. Nor can they exercise the right to vote for candidates in the Singapore State Assembly. In other words, Federal citizens who come and live in Singapore would have no right to vote in Singapore. If Singapore citizens go and live in the Federation, they cannot vote for any candidate nor stand for Federal election. In other words, Singapore citizens have only the right to vote in Singapore and Federal citizens have only the right to vote in the Federation. Under the P.A.P. proposals, Singapore citizens would not become Federal citizens. They can only vote in Singapore for 15 seats in the Federal Parliament. The Singapore Government would still be elected by Singapore citizens. This Singapore Government, as envisaged in the White Paper, would have more powers than the Johore State Government, which comes under a complete merger. The additional jurisdiction which would be given to Singapore in the State List, that is, exclusively for Singapore jurisdiction, are labour and welfare, education and health. And the additional concurrent jurisdiction would be - I will only relate the more important ones, Mr Speaker, Sir: (1) Banking and loans and borrowing by the State; (2) Imports and exports, production of goods and insurance; (3) Industry and regulation of industrial undertakings; (4) Shipping; (5) Newspapers, publications, publishers, printing and printing presses; (6) Administration and day-today programmes of Radio Singapore and television; the policy on broadcasting and television would be controlled by the Federal Government; (7) Censorship, theatres and cinemas; (8) A few other minor unimportant subjects. Sir, in a tiga suku merger, the Singapore State Government would thus have some more powers compared to the Johore State Government. I am bringing Johore as a comparison because it is nearest to Singapore. The P.A.P. Government's contention is that, under the White Paper, the Singapore State Government would have more powers than any other State Governments in the Federation, like Johore. This I do not think we can deny. Therefore, as the P.A.P. Government contends, in exchange, Singapore should accept 15 seats instead of 21 seats in the Federal Parliament. The P.A.P. Government further does not agree that all Singapore citizens can be qualified to become Federal citizens under the present Federation citizenship laws and, therefore, there should be two types of citizenship, one voting in Singapore and one voting in the Federation, and both voting for the Central Parliament in their respective territories. Sir, we do not regard the P.A.P. Government's formula as a genuine merger. It is like joining a club as an associate member. This club has ordinary members like Johore, and it would like to recruit associate members, as what is being proposed in the White Paper, like Singapore. Of course, my Party prefers that Singapore should join as an ordinary member and not as an associate member. The Federation Government has repeatedly said that it does not want Singapore to join the Federation as an ordinary member. It is prepared to admit the Borneo territories as ordinary members. But it would admit Singapore only as a partner, which I will call an associate member. There would thus be a distinction between the admission of Singapore and the admission of the three Borneo States. According to the plan which has been announced, sovereignty over Singapore would be transferred from the British to the Federation. In other words, instead of, at the moment, the British being the sovereign power over Singapore, sovereignty would be transferred to the Federation Parliament. Under the White Paper, citizens of Singapore and citizens of the Federation would be called Federation nationals. I think it will be confusing if we start arguing over the meanings of "national" and "citizenship". It is best to dispense with and forget about the words "Federal nationals". The word "citizenship" and the word "national" are interchangeable, and the important thing to find in each of these phrases is what rights, privileges and, obligations are attached? To show how confusing it would be Sir, a citizen of Johore is called a Johore national. He is a Johore national; he is a Federal citizen; under the proposed set-up he would be a Federal national and he is also a Commonwealth citizen. Johore national, Federal citizen, Commonwealth citizen, Federal national. He would have four status. But the other three status do not mean much except the status of being a Federal citizen. The rights, privileges and duties, as I have stated, of a Johore national derive from the fact that he is a Federal citizen and not so much because he is a Johore national, a Federal National, or a Commonwealth citizen. As far as Singapore citizens are concerned, the only benefit, as I can see from being a Federal national, is that instead of a British passport, one gets a Federation passport. In other words, there would be no actual benefit from this new concept of a Federal national. Therefore, it is best for argument's sake to leave out this concept of Federal national. Sir, we have the pros and cons of a genuine merger vis-a-vis a tiga-suku merger. In a genuine merger, we would be like the present Federal citizens living, say, in Johore. The Singapore Government, in a complete merger, would be like the present Johore State Government with very limited powers. We would vote 21 representatives into the Federal Parliament. If we move and live in any State of the Federation, we would also have the right to vote and to stand for election to the Federal, Parliament or for any State Parliament. This movement of citizens to the other territory is only put up for the sake of explanation, because we would not expect a great wave of emigration of people from Singapore into the Federation or from the Federation into Singapore. Now, we come to the "tiga-suku" merger. What are the pros and cons in the "tiga-suku" merger? In the "tiga-suku" merger, the Singapore State Government would have slightly more powers than the present Johore State Government. I have just enumerated those powers and additional jurisdiction. But there will be two distinct types of citizenship. Federal citizens can only vote in the Federation and Singapore citizens can only vote in Singapore. Both of them vote for representatives to a common and central Federal Parliament. Only Federal citizens can enjoy the benefits of Federal citizenship in the territory of the Federation. if they come to Singapore, they lose their rights. Only Singapore citizens can enjoy the benefits of Singapore citizenship in Singapore. If they go to the Federation, they will also similarly lose their rights. Singapore citizens, voting in Singapore in the "tiga-suku" merger will send 15 representatives to the Central Parliament. These are the pros and cons of a genuine merger and the "tiga-suku" merger. Sir, my Party, the United People's Party, stands for complete and genuine merger because the long-term advantages of a complete merger far outweigh any additional autonomy or short-term advantages granted to the Singapore State Government under a "tiga-suku" merger. May I repeat, Sir, the long-term advantages of a complete merger far outweigh any additional autonomy or short-term advantages granted to the Singapore State Government under a "tiga suku" merger? This additional autonomy of the State Government is more academic than real. I will explain the reasons later. Thus, the paramount issue on the question of merger is that of citizenship. We want a genuine merger because we want to see a united Malaya. We want a genuine merger because it is only in a united Malaya that we can create the basic conditions for progress and prosperity and to effect basic social and political changes for the benefit of all the races living in Malaya. In the years of colonial history, the British had adopted the policy of divide and rule. We have condemned the policy but the constitutional set-up proposed in the White Paper could not defeat such a policy. On the contrary, it will consolidate the policy of divide and rule because, instead of a common citizenship for all the peoples of Malaya, there will be two types of citizenship. Sir, such a constitutional arrangement as envisaged in the White Paper would not create the conditions for promoting undivided loyalty to the Malayan nation. No nation can be built on two types of citizenship. Instead, it will create much frustration and unhappiness. It is only in a common citizenship that the people of a country can share a common aspiration and foster a common Malayan patriotism. The absence of a common citizenship in the proposed constitutional set-up frustrates our hopes of building a united Malaya. And if these hopes are frustrated, then events may force the people of Singapore to seek their own salvation until genuine reunification is achieved. It is, therefore, my Party's contention that the Singapore Government should negotiate for a genuine merger with provisions for Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens. We shall take the case of Johore as an example. All Johore State nationals became Federal citizens by operation of law on Merdeka Day. Likewise, Singapore citizens should become Federal citizens. We will then enjoy the same rights and shoulder the same obligations as Federal citizens living in other parts of Malaya. A common citizenship is thereby a necessary condition, if it is our earnest desire to build up a common bond and an undivided loyalty towards Malaya. Sir, it is not correct to say that if there is complete merger only 284,000 out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens could be qualified to become Federal citizens -

Automatic.

Pardon?

Order.

- for the reason that only 284,000 were born in Singapore. Sir, if the place of birth is a yardstick, then those Singapore citizens who were born on Federation soil itself, like the Minister for Finance who has just interjected, and most of whom are entitled to become Federal citizens or had obtained Federal citizenship papers, should have no trouble in being given back Federal citizenship. Then there are the rest of Singapore citizens, who were not born either in Singapore or in the Federation and who had come mainly from China and India. I say that if these people from China and India had been domiciled in the Federation of Malaya instead of in Singapore, they would today be possessing Federal citizenship instead of Singapore citizenship. The requisite number of year's residence is almost the same, and there have been no extra practical difficulties in obtaining a Federal citizenship than in obtaining a Singapore citizenship. Therefore, all categories of citizens in Singapore should become Federal citizens, i.e., those born in Singapore, those born in the Federation, and those born outside Singapore and the Federation. I cannot see any valid grounds why Singapore citizens should not become Federal citizens in the same manner as the Johore State nationals, who are the equivalent of our Singapore citizens. Sir, I do not wish to repeat here the articles in the Federal Constitution which bestow certain rights on only Federal citizens, nor will I enumerate other rights reserved for citizens not stipulated in the written Constitution. Of course, it can always be argued, on the other hand, that Federal citizens cannot enjoy privileges and rights of Singapore citizens if they come and live in Singapore. And the argument holds good. But the rights and privileges of citizenship are not the main criterion, in my contention, for a common citizenship for both Singapore and the Federation. Of course, these rights are no doubt of the utmost importance. My main contention is that it is only in a common citizenship that a Malayan nation can be built and can be united. Nationalism cannot be built on weak foundations. Nationalism cannot be built on two types of citizenship. The concept of a Federal national would not bind the people of the two territories together, just as the concept of a Commonwealth citizen does not bind the people of, say, Malaya and, for instance, Australia together. How can we achieve our cherished desire? Where is the basis to build a single united Malayan nation on a foundation that is divided? I say it is only in a common citizenship, where all share equal rights, common obligations and destiny, and sink or swim together, that we can build the massive base of a single, united, political identity which should be the subject of our devotion and of our undivided loyalty. Sir, my view is that the constitutional set-up proposed in the White Paper is as far as the Federation Government would concede to the Singapore Government. After the Hong Lim by-election, the Federation Government has apparently been convinced by the Singapore Government that it is in the former's interest to do something about Singapore. But the Federation Government does not want a genuine merger. I ask, does the Singapore Government want a genuine merger? If it does, the Singapore Government must consult Opposition Parties at a roundtable conference and tell us its difficulties. We can plan a common programme to negotiate for a complete merger. But the Singapore Government has refused to do so. It has bypassed all Opposition Parties. It has agreed with the Federation on a constitutional set-up which is not merger, but which they present to us as merger. The Singapore Government, in my view, should ask and negotiate for a genuine merger. What is presented to us, Sir, in the White Paper is not merger. I remember the Minister for Labour in a speech at Nanyang University said (Straits Times, 1st September, 1961) that the proposed constitutional set-up is only a step towards reunification and towards merger, but not the final step. That would, in my opinion, be honest admission, that the proposed set-up could be a half-way house and not a genuine merger. This tiga suku merger gives, of course, to the Singapore Government a special status, special in the sense that we would be like an adopted child - adopted by the Federation from the British. Under the proposed set-up, the Singapore State Government can only govern Singapore under the sufferance of the Central Federal Government. Although it has more powers - as compared to, say, the Johore State Government - the powers and relationship of such a Singapore State Government can be almost equivalent to the powers and relationship of the former City Council in relation to the Singapore Government. There is, of course, a certain degree of autonomy, but in the last analysis, it is the Federal Parliament that shall have the final and the decisive say. Sir, I shall explain in the following few minutes the relationship between a Federal Government and a State Government. There are three types of jurisdiction in the relationship between a Federal Government and a State Government as contained in the Federal Constitution. First, there is a Federal List which contains all those subject matters or powers which are exclusively under Federal jurisdiction. A State Government has absolutely nothing to do with those powers under the Federal List. Second, there is a concurrent List which contains subject matters which a State Government can administer at the pleasure and with the general agreement of a Federal Government. Third, there is a State List which contains subject matters and powers which remain within the jurisdiction of a State Government. Sir, there are thus three Lists: a Federal List, a concurrent List, and a State List. In the proposed constitutional set-up for Singapore, there would be more subject matters included in the concurrent List and in the State List than are given to the other States of the Federation. There is no necessity for me to discuss the powers under the Federal List, because it would have nothing to do with the State Government, nor would I spend time on the concurrent List because it is provided constitutionally that the final legislative and executive jurisdiction rests with the Central Government. Now how about the subject matters in the State List? Sir, a Central Government which ii not friendly with a State Government can restrain or hinder a State Government in one or two ways from carrying out its jurisdiction either under the concurrent List or under the State List. It can do so either through the constitutional way, that is, through the Articles of the Constitution, or through the extra-constitutional way or through both the constitutional way in conjuction with the extra-constitutional way. Now, in the constitutional way, there are many Articles in the Federation Constitution which provide the Central Government with powers to make inroads into or to check the authority of the State Government. I shall not enumerate these powers because it might lead to confusion here. On the extra-constitutional methods, that is, methods which are not necessarily contained in the written Constitution, the most effective way the Central Government can act against the State Government is the Central Government's control over financial policy. We have seen how this is being done in Federal States like America, Australia and Canada. Needless to say, there are, in addition, a multitude of pressures and sanctions which the Central Gov ernment can enforce against a recalcitrant State Government. Sir, it cannot be said that the con stitutional proposals outlined in the White Paper giving the Singapore State Government some measure of local autonomy are not just plain humbug. The complete negation of the existence of such autonomy cannot be conducive to an objective appraisal and a discussion of the merits and demerits of a genuine merger and the proposed constitutional set-up. But I say that such autonomy as envisaged in the White Paper can only be effective and valid so long as the Federation Government concurs or agrees or does not raise serious objections to the general policies of the Singapore State Government. As I have said, it is possible for the Federation Government to revert back to itself those subject matters in the concurrent List. On those subject matters in the special State List for Singapore, which include labour and education, constitutional intervention by the Federation Government - that is, intervention through the Articles of the Federation Constitution - and/or constitutional sanctions or pressures exerted by the Federal Government can bring a recalcitrant Singapore State Government to its knees or bring it into disrepute. There is no doubt, Sir, in my mind, that the final power and authority will rest with the Federal Government. As sovereignty and ultimate authority over Singapore now rest with the British, sovereignty will rest with the Federal Parliament. Sir, the Federal Parliament will be the source and fountain of political and legislative power. No doubt, the final authority could thus rest with the Federal Government which controls the Federal Parliament whether it be a complete merger or whether it be a tiga suku merger. Sir, it must be stressed that we are not objecting to the principle of a strong Central Federal Government. In fact, only a strong Central Federal Government can bring prosperity and stability to a country. But what we object to is the constitutional arrangement whereby the main purpose of reunification which is to build a united Malaya would be defeated. In a complete merger, Sir, there would be no autonomy on educa tion and labour and various other subjects, but there would be a common citizenship. Singapore State would be like Johore State. In a complete merger, the Singapore State Government will have less powers than under a tiga suku merger, but in my view, the difference in autonomy of a Singapore State Government in a complete merger and in a tiga suku merger is, for practical purposes, not of substantial importance. On the other hand, the advantages of a common citizenship will not only provide the foundation for fostering patriotism and the building of a united Malayan nation but also on the principle of one man one vote the people of Singapore, as citizens of a united Federation of Malaya, can, through the constitutional machinery, play their part in shaping the course of political events for the progress of Malaya. Sir, the Singapore Government has made a "bargain". In exchange for 15 seats and some measure of autonomy in certain subject matters - for example, education and labour - it is prepared to concede the basic principle of a common citizenship for the two territories. I say that the people are not in favour of such a constitutional arrangement. The people want a genuine merger and a common citizenship. My Party is in full support of the feelings expressed in the motion moved by the Minister for Labour, because merger evokes a patriotic sentiment and kindles the torch of nationalism. No true patriot of Malaya can help but share those feelings with the Minister for Labour. It is our basic policy to subscribe to the principle of a united Malaya. The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown brings into prominence the paramount issue in merger, which is the citizenship question. In our view, there is no contradiction or conflict between the motion of the Minister for Labour and the amendment of the Member for Queenstown. A common citizenship is necessary in a genuine merger. We support the motion of the Minister for Labour and we also support the amendment of the Member for Queenstown. An hon. Member: You support everybody!

But what we do not support is the motion of the Prime Minister on the White Paper which My Party declares is not in accord with the spirit of merger and contradicts the motion moved by the Minister for Labour. We have always stood for merger. As far back as June 1960, we have asked the Government to initiate merger talks. Nobody in this House can condemn us for advocating merger openly and opposing merger privately. We want a genuine merger which will bring back our vision of a united Malaya where all races will live in complete and perfect harmony. The White Paper will not give us such a genuine merger. My Party therefore rejects the White Paper. 3.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown, in moving his amendment to the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Labour, alleged that the Tunku was suddenly persuaded to agree to merger because of the alleged P.A.P. "sell-out" over the question of citizenship. I must say I find it difficult to follow his confused thinking and unravel his involved argument. We analysed as early as 1958 in our 4th Anniversary Party Souvenir entitled "The New Phase After Merdeka" that there are two main reasons why the Federation Government were wary of merger: 'First: Singapore has about one million Chinese. The inclusion of this one million into the Federation will upset the racial balance of power in the Federation. Second: Singapore has too many "leftists" who are supported by the one million Chinese in Singapore.' To the Alliance leaders, they believe all "leftists" may be Communists of varying degrees.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Would the Hon. Minister table a copy of that document so that hon. Members can consult it now?

Is the Minister quoting from a document?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have it with me, but I thought it is one of those documents that everybody has read again and again.

Order. If it is a document from which the Minister is quoting, then, of course, that document should be produced. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to produce copies. That will satisfy the Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown, I am glad to say, accepted this analysis of the P.A.P. without any qualification. He signed a statement to that effect. The fact that the Federation Government refused automatic conversion of citizenship has once again reflected the two basic fears of the Federation. Instead of going all out to convince the Federation that the Chinese in Singapore are Malayan conscious and that the Left-wing elements are not all Communists, that we want to be friends with the Federation and not to be hostile to the Federation, these ex-P.A.P. Members now in the Barisan Sosialis have allowed themselves to be inveigled by the Communists into doing just the opposite.

According to the P.M., of course!

For by their speech and actions, by playing up to chauvinistic and pro-Communist elements, they have tried to arouse the very fears which made the Federation hesitate about merger, that is, too many Chinese who are China-orientated and too many Leftists who are Communist inclined. The kind of propaganda the Barisan Sosialis are following will only strengthen the Federation's belief that the Barisan Sosialis type of merger with automatic conversion of citizenship was a dangerous proposition to be accepted at the present juncture. The Barisan Sosialis is of the view that 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 main stream 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.

What does the P.A.P. say to that?

Nevertheless, "we [the Barisan Sosialis] are prepared to accept merger under these conditions provided it occurs immediately and is followed by pan-Malayan general elections." Mr Speaker, Sir, is this the kind of attitude to be adopted by people who want to seek concord and come to a satisfactory agreement with the elected Federation Government? Rather, it openly declares to the Federation the true intention of the hidden masters of the Barisan Sosialis, i.e., to make use of Singapore as a base and the merger the means of overthrowing the Federation Government and set up a pro-Communist State. This explains their insistence on automatic citizenship so that they could stand as candidates in the Federation. The whole objection to the P.A.P. type of merger is not because the prosperity of Singapore and the livelihood of the people will be adversely affected (in fact, the Member for Queenstown has admitted in his speech that nobody in Singapore will be adversely affected), but because in the P.A.P. type of merger, the interests of a few politically ambitious individuals - the real masters for whom the Member for Queenstown is working, will be unable to stand as candidates and be elected in the Federation. The interests of a few politically ambitious individuals are the real reason why they are afraid of en trusting internal security in the hands of the new Federation legislature in which Singapore will be represented. For unlike the genuine democrats and nationalists, these few individuals, in keeping with Communist theory and practice, indulge in open legal political activities and also underground illegal activities. The Barisan Sosialis leaders know that even now the Internal Security Council has the necessary powers to deal with these few individuals if they go beyond the limit. In entrusting internal security, a power which has never been wholly in the hands of the Singapore Government, to the elected Federation Government, there is neither gain nor loss to the Singapore people. However, to the Communists, there is a great difference as explained by the Prime Minister in his radio talks: "To be imprisoned by the British colonialists is to be a martyr, in the company of Mr Nehru, Dr Nkrumah, Dr Banda and many other anti-colonial nationalists. But to be locked up by Mr Nehru, Dr Nkrumah, or Col. Nasser or the Tunku is an entirely different matter," and hence, the Barisan Sosialis' agitation over internal security being transferred from the hands of the tripartite Internal Security Council to the elected Federation Government, in which Singapore will have a part. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, or its real masters, know more than anyone else that their proposal for merger, with automatic conversion of citizenship rights (a right which is not even enjoyed by Penang or Malacca) will not be acceptable to the Federation Government. But then, one may ask, why did they put forward a proposal of capturing the Federation Government, knowing very well that it will be turned down? The answer is that they do not want a merger at this stage when there is a government in the Federation which views unfavourably Communist and pro-Communist activities. What the Barisan Sosialis really want is complete internal self-government, even though it means prolonging colonial rule since the British will still be in charge of defence and foreign affairs. A contradiction which can only be explained by the fact that they are only fighting for their sectional interests. Reunification of Singapore with the Federation is inevitable because geographically, culturally and economically, Singapore is part of the Federation. Reunification has been the slogan of all genuine nationalists and anti-colonialists since 1946. For the Barisan Sosialis to go against the aspiration of the people will be utter folly. Yet, deep in their hearts, they do not want a merger with the Central Government in charge of security. As a way out of this dilemma, they seek to confuse the people with a merger proposal that is not acceptable to the Federation, so that they could fight for complete internal self-government without being accused by the people of prolonging colonial rule. It was, to use the words of the Member for Queenstown, "a sell-out", a traitorous move by the Barisan Sosialis to sell the independence and freedom of Singapore to the British colonial rulers. The Member for Changi accused the P.A.P. of wanting to remain in power and therefore seeks the Tunku's help. He said that the people wanted the Government to return the mandate. The P.A.P. refused to do so. So they quickly brought about the merger issue and threatened the people with imaginary consequences if merger does not take place. The move by the P.A.P. according to the Member for Changi, was an attempt to enable the "ruling class" to continue their control over the people and stay in power for a further period. Mr Speaker, Sir, as with all phoney socialists and anti-colonialists, they always speak with their tongues in their cheeks. Far from being eager to remain in office, we were the first to suggest returning the mandate to the people after the Hong Lim by-election. But who were the people who resisted most strenuously at our Party conference? None other than the 13 ex-P.A.P. Assemblymen and Parliamentary Secretaries who are now in the Barisan Sosialis. They were the people who stood up one after the other to oppose the suggestion of holding a referendum on whether the P.A.P. should continue in office. They were scared of the prospect of having to return the mandate to the people for fear that they would not be re-elected. This fear was subtly and effectively exploited by the Com munists. Overnight, we found them, one after the other, standing up for the pro-Communist line of "internal self-government without the I.S.C.", and finally culminating in their betrayal of their comrades and Party. Ever since their failure to capture the Party and the Government, they now demand we should return the mandate. Let us remind the Member for Changi and all the other Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen that the very people who should return the mandate to the people are the ex-P.A.P. Assemblymen who had defected to the Barisan Sosialis. They were the candidates who stood on the P.A.P. platform and were elected on P.A.P. policies, one of which was independence through merger which was endorsed by the people years ago. They signed a pledge in April 1959 in which they categorically pledged to support the policy of merger between the Federation and Singapore as set out in the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee's statement published in the 4th Anniversary Souvenir in 1958. They also pledged to resign from this Assembly if they were to be expelled from the Party. It is the ex-P.A.P. in the Barisan Sosialis who have betrayed and disavowed P.A.P. political objectives and were expelled from the Party. If they are not men of straw, if they have any honour and decency in them, they should resign and seek a fresh man date on the Barisan Sosialis platform before coming here. [Interruption.]

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the opportunism and political ambition of the ex-P.A.P. in the Barisan Sosialis have been exploited by the pro-Communists who do not want merger. The ex-P.A.P. Assemblymen have been trapped into stabbing their own comrades and indulging in shameful betrayal of the Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, political leaders who could "sell out" their Party and comrades in a crucial by-election are not men whose words could be trusted. The amendment proposed by these political traitors, therefore, is not genuine and cannot be taken seriously. It should be judged in the light of their traitorous actions in Anson. The Member for Queenstown may consider himself heroic when he said that in putting up their merger proposal they were prepared for sacrifices and even arrests for their political convictions. But may I remind the Member for Queenstown (and the Member for Nee Soon) that they did not join the P.A.P. in the anti-colonial struggle until 1959 when the days of risks were over?

Prove that! Prove that!

Order. Interruption is all right in a way, but when it becomes unseemly then it is very disorderly.

And incidentally, may I inform the Member for Queenstown, and also the Member for Changi, that such brave words have been uttered by many a person in the past, but subsequent events do not bear testimony to the value of such words. I remember on the eve of the second purge by the Lim Yew Hock Government in 1957, the Member for Havelock, as the then Secretary of the Tanjong Pagar Branch, gathered the Branch Committee and vowed solemnly before the P.A.P. symbol that all should stand solidly together and face the coming storm. Brave words indeed! However, when the storm and the rain did come, the Member for Havelock and some of his friends found themselves in the Federation, leaving those of us who have not the opportunity to thump our chest and express our courage and comradeship to re-gather and re-organise the abandoned flock to put them in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, for any merger pro posed to succeed, it must be based on realistic principles and must be practical. It must be fair and just both to the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation. It is futile to fight for the exclusive interests of Singapore and yet expect the Federation to accept such a plan, which is what the Barisan Sosialis amendment seeks to do. It is no use pre tending that the Barisan Sosialis' proposals are practical or acceptable to the people of Singapore or the Federation. The Tunku has said that he is not prepared to agree to automatic conversion of citizenship because of the liberal citizenship laws in Singapore in the past. Besides, the Barisan Sosialis have demonstrated their insincerity in their stand on merger. First, they suggest the entry of Singapore as a constituent State of the Federation like Penang or Malacca. Since then, however, this demand for merger on the basis of Penang or Malacca has been dropped and even in the 7� hours long speech of the Member for Queenstown in this Assembly, not a single reference was made to this original stunt of theirs. They must have realised after the radio forum, in which the Member for Queenstown participated in his capacity as Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis on 22nd September, 1961, that for Singapore to enter the Federation on the same basis as Penang and Malacca would mean the disenfranchisement of about 340,000 present Singapore citizens. And to extricate themselves from their predicament, the Member for Queenstown spent nearly 7� hours in this Assembly to prove that the Federation Parliament has the power under Article 22 to grant automatic citizenship rights to Singapore citizens - a fact which no one disputes. But the question is whether the Federation is prepared to accept special citizenship rights being accorded to Singapore but denied to Penang or Malacca which was an integral part of the Federation. The Member for Queenstown said that it is not fair and just if there is no automatic citizenship after merger. Is it fair and just then to our brothers in Penang and Malacca who did not enjoy such rights? The Barisan Sosialis, being only interested in advancing the sectional interests of a few ambitious politicians to stand for election in Kelantan and Trengganu, is prepared to wreck the merger proposals. Are the vast majority of ordinary people who have no political ambitions of standing for election in Trengganu or Kelantan willing to allow their interests to be sacrificed in this way? The Member for Queenstown accused the P.A.P. of selling out the interests of the people of Singapore because we did not press for automatic citizenship rights. But what are the interests that we have been accused of selling out? In our merger proposals, will any Singapore citizen lose his citizenship? The answer is "No". The White Paper setting out the heads of agreement for a merger between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore states categorically that "all Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship" and "Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their state rights and privileges within Singapore." Yet, we have the Member for Changi deliberately saying in this House that Singapore citizens will lose their citizenship on merger under the P.A.P. proposals. Whom is he going to bluff? Mr Speaker, Sir, if a man has decided to close his mind to all reason and logic, then you can sit and talk till the cow comes home and you will not be able to make him move from the position that he has taken. If, therefore, the Member for Changi chooses to be a cow, then no one can move him by reason or logic.

On a point of order. Is it proper that a Member of this House should be described as a cow?

The objection is well taken. I do not think we have, in fact, in the past allowed any Member to be described as any animal. Will the Minister withdraw that word?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just illustrating how stubborn some people are.

Some people are stubborn, as stubborn as a mule. But even then I do not think a Member can be likened to a mule. Perhaps the Minister will just withdraw and not debate my ruling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw the word. As I have said, Sir, in our merger proposals, no Singapore citizen is going to lose his citizenship and the rights and privileges that go with it. In addition, every Singapore citizen on merger will gain Federal nationality and will be able, for the first time in 150 years of colonial domination, to proudly proclaim to be national of an independent Federation of Malaya or Malaysia. Perhaps the Barisan Sosialis would feel prouder still if they would remain as British subjects in a complete internal self-government? In any merger proposal, the object must be the furtherance and protection of the interests of the broad masses of the people, not the interests of a few ambitious politicians who want to stand for election in Ipoh or Kuantan. This is what precisely the P.A.P. type of merger proposals seek to achieve. No one can be so blind as to ignore the fact that as a result of 16 years of separation engineered by the colonial rulers, differences of interests and attitudes exist today. Such differences cannot be wiped out overnight without causing consider able unhappiness to the people. And instead of bringing about merger in a happy and peaceful manner, there may be chaos and violence. The P.A.P., being realists and taking cognizance of the objective political conditions existing today, has decided to reserve for itself reserve powers in Labour and Education and other social services with a view to achieving merger in a peaceful way. The Barisan Sosialis' real bosses, on the other hand, were unable to extricate themselves from their inflexible doctrinaire approach which can only lead to riots and civil commotion. The P.A.P. way of merger will ensure the existing interests and promotion prospects of our civil service and, in addition, there will be opportunities for entry into Federal service to look after the Pan-Malayan departments. Chinese parents who want their children to go to Chinese schools will be able to do so as under the present policy of equal treatment for all streams of education, and after graduation, equal opportunities for employment will go on in Singapore. Workers will be assured that the pro-labour policy and legislation they have enjoyed will continue. Businessmen, contractors, and bus companies and taxis will not be worried about privileges or special rights for anybody in trading and business. Merchants will be assured that the free port status and free trade with all countries will continue. The Barisan Sosialis type of merger proposal, on the other hand, will straightaway bring the civil service under the 4:1 ratio between the Malays and non-Malays. There will be restric tions to the granting of certain types of business and contracts to non-Malays. Many of the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen will not even be sitting in this House and those whose political ambitions lead them to betray their colleagues and the P.A.P. by defecting to the Barisan Sosialis will find their hopes of standing for election vanish into thin air because the Barisan Sosialis type of merger will mean the immediate application of English and Malay as the official languages for the State Assembly as well as the Federal Parliament. The Member for Jalan Kayu might take note of that. Graduates of Chinese schools and Nanyang University whom the Barisan Sosialis wish to exploit will not be accepted for government service. Chinese school students will have to sit for their public examinations in the official languages of Malay and English, a matter which the Barisan Sosialis dare not talk about, knowing it will be unpalatable to the Chinese school students whom they seek to involve in their united front activities. The Member for Queenstown said that the P.A.P.'s proposal to give "educational rights to the Chinese here different from those available in the Federation," would mean that the people in Singapore would be isolated from the rest across the Causeway creating new cleavages among the different communities through their different educational rights. "It was a path, [according to him], leading not to national unity but to national disunity and to war. It was a path that every man, however desperate, must avoid." Mr Speaker, Sir, let me make clear to this House that no one disagrees with him in principle, that the education system in both the Federation and Singapore must be the same to make for one national identity and loyalty. The difference between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis on this educational issue is one of time, of when to merge the present differences into one. First, let me explain what immediate acceptance of the Federation education policy means vis-a-vis Chinese education. This is vital and one which the Barisan Sosialis leaders seek to gloss over in their public statements. The most unhappy feature and one which evokes most heat and agitation by the Chinese in the Federation in respect of the Rahman Talib Education Report is that of medium of instruction and examination. The Rahman Talib Report provides that the medium of instruction in Chinese Primary Schools shall be in Chinese. As for the Chinese Secondary Schools, the main medium of instruction shall be in Malay or English with Chinese language and literature reduced to one-third of curriculum time. How ever, the examination's for the Lower School Certificate and the Federation School Certificate, the two officially recognised certificates for jobs in Government and teaching service, and for further studies, shall be conducted in Malay or English. It is true that Chinese could still be used as the medium of instruction in Chinese Secondary Schools, but such schools would become independent schools, i.e., receive no government aid. All of us will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there was an immediate reaction from the Chinese in the Federation and charges of elimination of Chinese culture and education were made. Chinese education became the central issue in political agitation against the Federation Gov ernment by communal parties such as the P.P.P. and even in the Sosialist Front and Rahman Talib Report led to a split between the Malay and the Chinese wings and the threatened resignation of its President, Ahmad Boestaman. In Singapore, scathing attacks - no doubt heartily supported by the Barisan Sosialis - were made by Nanyang University students in their publication. These were the results in the Federation where the Chinese do not form the majority of the population. If the Barisan Sosialis type of proposal is accepted and, overnight, the Chinese school students find themselves having to learn in Chinese but be examined in English or Malay or be taught and examined in Malay or English in the secondary schools, the position will be catastrophic in Singapore where it is essentially very much a Chinese city.

They go on strike like today!

Far from achieving national unity, the Barisan Sosialis type of merger proposal will invite mass agitation and rallies and lead eventually to violence and chaos and suppression. It would be indeed, in the words of the Member for Queenstown, "a path leading to national disunity and to war". As it is now with equal treatment in Singapore to all streams of education with the medium of instruction in the respective mother tongues in primary and secondary schools and also in Nanyang University and full grant-in-aids to schools, some students in Chinese schools, no doubt, forming part of the present political struggle promoted by the M.C.P. through the Barisan Sosialis, the unions and rural organisations, are already agitating against secondary school examinations, mind you, in their own mother tongue. On this agitation, it is also of interest to note that the Barisan Sosialis' official organ gave full coverage and support to it. Does the Barisan Sosialis seriously suggest that it is willing to accept the present Federation education policy immediately? Perhaps the answer is already found in their conspicuous silence on this subject in their open statements and public rallies. May I suggest to the Barisan Sosialis that if they are genuine and sincerely believe in accepting immediately the Federation education policy, they should first put their proposal to the people and seek their support? For us, while we believe in the principle of one common education policy for the whole of Malaya, nevertheless, we are of the opinion that this, being an emotional issue, should come about more gradually, if we are to team from the Federation experience, so that our path to merger will not lead to disunity and war. Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that if merger is to be achieved in a peaceful manner with no one losing any of its existing rights, then the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown will not achieve it. We cannot seek merger by taking up fixed positions. Problems of merger must be approached on the basis of "seeking concord while maintaining differences", a slogan which the Barisan Sosialis and their real masters have dropped, perhaps a bit too quickly when they find that this slogan no longer works to their advantage. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the latter half of 1960 the M.C.P. was pursuing the policy of "struggle and unite" vis-a-vis the P.A.P. Later when they discovered that the P.A.P. was not stooging for them, the slogan of the day "to seek concord while maintaining differences" was mouthed by every front organisation at their meetings. But when they discovered that the P.A.P. was not prepared to accept their objective of fighting for full internal self-government but, instead, was pursuing its avowed objective of independence through merger, which everyone of the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen was pledged to fight for and on which they were elected by the people, the slogan was dropped. Since then they have resorted to unproved slogan like "sellout". The Member for Changi said that just because they, the Barisan Sosialis, fought for self-government and not merger, therefore, the P.A.P. ruling class accused them of pro-British. The Member for Changi then went on to explain why the Barisan Sosialis demanded self-government instead of merger and be independent. He explained that the British Government came from abroad and not elected by the local people. Similarly, the Malayan Government also came from outside and not elected by the Singapore people. As such, under the P.A.P. merger proposal, Singapore will still remain as a self-governing State with its defence, internal security, and foreign affairs transferred from the British colonialists to the Right-wing Government of Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, can anyone still doubt that the Member for Changi and the Barisan Sosialis, the so-called genuine anti-colonialists, prefer the British colonialists to the independent Malayan Government? Since the British colonial Government came from outside and not elected by the local people, and the Malayan Government also came from outside and not elected by the local people, why not continue to be a self-government under the British colonialists? Why transfer the power over defence, internal security and foreign affairs to the Malayan nationalists? Are not the British colonialists just as good, if not more efficient? Why fight for a merger although it means that Singapore will be an integral part of the independent Federation of Malaya? Why give up the status of British subjects, and therefore under the protection of the mighty imperial power, for nationals of the new Federation of Malaya or Malaysia? But let me tell the Member for Changi and the Barisan Sosialis leaders that the P.A.P., as true Malayan nationalists, would rather entrust our defence, internal security and foreign affairs to the independent Malayan Government elected by the Singapore and Malayan people, who are our own brothers and sisters and who share with us the same common aspiration, than to the British colonialists who are not elected by the local people and responsible only to the British people. We would rather carry a Malayan or Malaysian passport than a British passport. If the Member for Changi is still confused by his own dialectics and cannot see any difference between the British colonialists and Malayan nationalists, then I pity the students under his tutelage. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. regard Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as one people in one territorial unit. The people of the Federation are our brothers and sisters in the same family coming together after a long separation by the colonial rulers. No doubt, after 16 years of separation, certain differ ences of views may have developed, but we regard these differences, to use the phrase of Chairman Mao as "the internal contradictions of the people" which can be resolved in a friendly manner. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, who are supposed to be ardent followers of Chairman Mao, appear to have applied the analysis in the wrong direction. Instead of regarding the Federation Government and the people as our brothers and our peoples, they have regarded them as foreigners and enemies; and the British as their friends to whom they are prepared to entrust defence and foreign relations of the State. The Barisan Sosialis, in accusing the Federation Government of being a colonial government policing interests for the British and attempting to subjugate the people of Singapore, have declared their intention to strengthen the forces in the Federation in their struggle against the Federation Government and, consequently, demanded a general election immediately so that they can capture the Federation. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not the language of people who genuinely seek concord. This is the language of war. The differences between Singapore and the Federation, according to the Barisan Sosialis analysis, are not to be regarded as only the internal contradictions of the people, but antagonistic contradictions between enemies. In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to the motion is not a genuine desire to seek merger by the Barisan Sosialis, but a camouflage to wreck merger. The Barisan Sosialis today stands condemned as the enemy of reunification of the two peoples, the enemy of Malayan nationalism. They have become instead the allies of anti national elements. They would rather carry a British passport than the passport of an independent Federation. 4.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has said that there has been a lot of confusion. I agree with him. I could not agree with him more. But the trouble is that he confuses us more by saying that he supports both the motion and the amendment. In fact, I am not very sure whether he is not a little confused himself because the motion reads: '. . .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-' I repeat "in a merger" - 'of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.'. It does not say a phoney merger or a genuine merger or a confederation merger. It just says "in a merger" - a merger as the world understands as dictionaries or political books give its meaning. But here we have been sitting - I think this is the seventh day - and debating on what sort of merger: phoney merger, genuine merger, complete merger or three-quarters merger. All that the motion asks us to answer is, "Do you or do you not want merger?" If we want a merger, then let us sit down and discuss the motion on the White Paper. If we do not want merger, it is nonsense to ask what kind of merger. What is the use of talking about details of merger when we do not want merger? This motion just seeks to ask us, "Do you want it or not? If you want it, we will proceed. If not, we will not proceed." What happens? We have sat down for seven days and, as you put it. Sir, confusion mounts on confusion until I do not know whether it has confused the Member for Hong Lim so much that he is supporting both the motion and the amendment. Sir, in the Straits Times of 24th November, page 12, on the speech of the Member for Anson in regard to the amendment of the Barisan Sosialis to the motion of the Minister for Labour, there were very big headlines in the half-inch letters - you seldom get such big headlines - that that amendment gives two meanings to the word "merger". My question is, "Does it?" The answer is "No.". The Member for Anson is reported also to have said that he could not have agreed more with the Member for Cairnhill in that merger could only mean merger - this is from the same newspaper - with the complete reunification of the two territories, and the citizens completely identified as citizens of the Federation. He continued, however, to say that that was what the Barisan Sosialis amendment is seeking to clarify. Sir, if merger means that the citizens of the two territories are completely identified as citizens of the Federation, it would also mean that Singapore citizens would enjoy all the rights of the Federal citizens. It is not just these two - automatic citizenship and the entrance of Singapore into the Federation - but all the rights of the Federal citizens. May I ask, Sir, whether the entrance of Singapore as the twelfth State and the automatic citizenship for Singapore are the only two conditions that constitute a genuine merger? No. There are many other conditions and rights that comprise - what the Barisan Sosialis call - a genuine merger. These two conditions on their own do not in any way constitute a genuine merger or a complete merger. Then why should we mention these two and leave out all the others, especially when on the motion no one has tried to specify any type of merger? And rightly so, why should they? Sir, if the motion is defeated, what will be the effect of it? The motion asks, "Do you want a merger?" If the motion is defeated, then we show that we do not want a merger. I think, Sir, it is nonsense then to go on to discuss the motion on the White Paper. If this House does not want that sort of merger at all, we must first indicate whether we want or do not want merger. It may be argued, Sir, but it is understood. It has been said several times - outside this Chamber, inside and everywhere - that all Parties want merger, that everyone realises that the separation between the territories is artificial and that we all agree that the reunification of the two territories is inevitable. It may be said it is taken for granted. This is exactly what the motion is seeking to confirm and to place on record. As I read it, it just says, "Do you want merger or not?" It has naturally not specified whether it is the P.A.P. phoney merger or the Barisan Sosialis genuine merger or the S.P.A. confederation type of merger, but just merger as everyone in the world understands it. Had the motion made an attempt at limiting the meaning of the word by saying this merger or the P.A.P. type of merger or even the merger which is under discussion, then probably the amendment is justified; we do not want that type of merger. But then the motion has not specified what type of merger. So we take it that the word "merger" means what the world understands the word "merger" to mean. We have been here, Sir, I think, seven days, not listening to whether we want merger or not, and if we want merger why, and if we do not want merger, why do we not want it, but hearing accusations and condemnations to and fro, from P.A.P. to ex-P.A.P. and back again. We have beard very strong words used - as a matter of fact, I believe to many of us, the strongest we have heard in our lives. We have heard a protest in the form of a marathon 7�-hour speech and we are presented with a proposed amendment. We have been debating it for about seven days. And all because we were asked, "Do you want a merger or not?" Everybody says, "We want a merger." But we spent seven days arguing.

Order. I think for the record this is the sixth day.

I beg your pardon, Sir. You see, even I am confused! Honestly, Sir, is the amendment necessary? Does it make the motion any more acceptable? Many people think yes, but I say no, Sir. On the contrary, it is not because we do not want genuine merger or automatic citizenship. But if the amendment is accepted - in other words, the motion becomes a Ba risan Sosialis type of merger, because, as I pointed out just now, a genuine merger will consist of more than two rights, and to put just the two rights that the Barisan Sosialis wish to emphasise would make it a Barisan Sosialis type of merger - then it would probably be less acceptable than just the word "merger" as the world understands it. As I have said before, Sir, merger means that all rights enjoyed by Federal citizens will be conferred on the present Singapore citizens who will be Federal citizens. There are many rights enjoyed by the Federal citizens. If we are to catalogue all those rights, I am afraid that the amendment is going to be a bigger document than the White Paper itself, because I am sure we too have our own ideas of how the people of Singapore should benefit by a merger, and probably all the other Parties here have their own ideas too besides the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan Sosialis must remember that probably the Federation too has its own idea of what a genuine merger is and what the benefits of a genuine merger should be like. If an amendment is necessary to define the type of merger, it should include all the demands and all the terms that all the Parties here want, and it should also contain the interpretation and demands of everybody. Can you imagine the chaos, Sir, if we all start putting in amendments on what we particularly want to stress? As I have said before, Sir, the only question before the House in the motion is, do we or do we not agree - '...that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunifi cation of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.'. If we do, let us vote for the motion. If we do not, then let us vote against it. Or is the Barisan Sosialis saying that this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a Barisan Sosialis type of merger? Because, in effect, that is what it is going to be if that amendment is accepted. Sir, there have been quite a lot of legal brains talking on this amendment and the whole question of merger from the legal aspect. Some philosophers have offered philosophies of the different types and theories of merger. Sir, may I take it from a psychological angle? In moving the motion, I presume that the Minister for Labour hopes that the House will support him. In asking for a genuine merger, I take it that the Member for Queenstown hopes that the Federation will grant it. And yet what do they do, Sir? The Minister, in hoping that we all - including the Barisan Sosialis - will support him starts attacking the Barisan Sosialis, saying all sorts of things about them, hoping that by that means he is going to get them to support him. I do not understand the psychology of that, Sir. And then the Member for Queenstown, in trying to get the Tunku to agree to a genuine merger, says all sorts of things about him and his Government. The Member for Nee Soon no doubt tries to explain that in a democratic government we are allowed to criticise, that he is not criticising the man but only what he and his Government are doing. That is all very well, Sir, but I do not see the need to threaten. The Member for Queenstown wants to get merger from the Tunku by telling him that after a genuine merger the Barisan Sosialis will unite with the Socialist parties in the Federation to overthrow the Tunku's Government. I do not see the logic or the psychology of that, Sir. You want a thing from a person and yet you say to him, "Give it to me so that I can do harm." If the Member for Queenstown is going to ask the Minister for Labour to go for a drive with him so that he will rob him, I am sure he will not disclose it and say, "Look here, Ahmad, come for a drive with me so that I can rob you when we reach a solitary place." If he says that. I maintain that he is not serious in wanting the Minister to go with him for a drive. Probably he does not want the Minister to go and that is why he says that. The threat is put there to deter the Minister from going. Probably it is because the Member for Queenstown is meeting his girl friend down there or probably even meeting someone whom he should not meet. I do not know. But the main idea is that by saying that, the intention is not to get the Minister to come along. So I do not quite see how by threatening -

On a point of order. The hon. Member is imputing a very bad motive on my part! She says that I want to rob!

That, of course, is just a frivolous objection. Mrs Seow.

Thank you, Sir. As I have said, if you want something from a person, you do not get it by threatening him.

Is it a convenient time to suspend?

Yes.

I shall take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the net of merger closes on them, the Communist cadres are now falling back on Chinese schools to whip up emotions and, if possible, widespread chaos and trouble in order to stem the rising tide of merger. Today these reckless and desperate Communist elements mobilised innocent and misinformed school children to picket examination centres in the hope of intimidating those students who wished to take the first Government Secondary IV Examination in Chinese. May I emphasise here, Sir, that no student is compelled to take this examination? All those who are taking this examination are doing so of their own free will and because their parents wish them to do so. And it is the duty of the Government, in a democratic country, to see that no student is denied the right to sit for such an examination if he so wishes it and if his parents desire it. It is significant that despite the intimi dation and picketing, about 1,900 students, or more than 60 per cent of the students, sat for the examination. The so-called boycott organised by Communist elements has not succeeded, but the fact that they have now been reduced to using school children as pawns and expendable material in their anti-merger campaign is significant. For Chinese schools, Chinese education and culture have often been their rallying points for mustering innocent people to man Communist barricades. The Government has reason to believe that these Communist cadres, in their desperation, will now incite those innocent and misinformed students into resorting to more reckless and rougher tactics. The boycott was only incidentally, to prevent students from taking the examination. The real objective of the picketing was to force a clash between the police and the school children in the hope that some school children would get hurt, and in this way the Communists can use such incidents to mount public feeling against the Government. It is typical of these Communist leaders that, in order to achieve their ends, they are ready to do this safely behind the skirts of school children. These great revolutionaries, not daring to challenge the Government directly, are willing to gamble with the safety of children. The Government refused to fall into the Communist trap. It allowed these excited and misinformed students to picket schools but did not bring out the police. The result was that not only was the picketing not a success but the Communist cadres were denied the opportunity of provoking a clash between school children and the police. However, we have reason to believe that they will try to force the situation by using these misinformed school children to do things which would bring about violence. The examinations are scheduled for a week. All indications are that the students will be used to precipitate violence. Plans are being considered by these Communist cadres in the schools to get into the examination halls, tear up examination papers, and force the candidates to disperse. Squads of students are being organised and may visit the homes of students who are taking the examination to intimidate them into abandoning the examinations. The real objective is to force violence between students and police. Since the Government has steadfastly refused to use the police in an educational issue which the Government has allowed the Chinese educationists themselves to decide, the Communist cadres who are behind this agitation are becoming more determined to force a clash between the police and the school children. They will go to any lengths between now and the end of the examinations to achieve this. It is necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the public, the misinformed school children, and parents to bear this in mind. It is significant to bear in mind that this agitation in Chinese schools began only after the merger issue came to the forefront. It is only since then that the cry of Chinese education being in danger was raised. No member of the public believed this. Even the Barisan Socialis representatives, including my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, never believed this. For it is unlikely that they would have stayed on with the Government which for two years -

Order. In a ministerial statement, I do not think it is proper for the Minister to make a statement which invites debate. Mr Minister.

Well, in fact, my former Parliamentary Secretary defended the whole system before the Prime Minister. It is only since they broke away from us on the issue of merger that they have taken to making vague and unsubstantiated allegations that the Government is not treating Chinese education fairly. The current agitation in schools is being organised by Communist cadres. It is not an educational issue but a political one - part of the pro-Communist campaign to halt merger. Since June, when the pro-Communist elements decided to challenge the Government on the merger issue, the Communists have been straining every nerve to mobilise forces against the Government with a view to bringing it down and sabotaging merger. The attempt to capture the Government has failed. Their attempt to bring down the Government by constitutional means has failed. Their attempt to capture the Party from within has failed. Their attempt to stir up strikes and precipitate -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir,In a ministerial statement, is it proper that the Minister should indulge in attacks of which we have heard a lot already?

To use a word which is often used in this Assembly and was used by the Member for Anson, I have indicated that a ministerial statement should be completely dispassionate, and facts should be placed before the Assembly. If the Minister thinks that the matter is of such importance that he requires a debate, then there is a procedural device. He moves the adjournment of the House, makes a statement, Members are allowed to debate the statement, and then at the end of the debate, the Minister asks for leave to withdraw that motion. That is the device if, in fact, the Minister is inviting a debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a statement that I wish to make because I think it is a very topical issue and things will develop. So now we find that they are falling back on Chinese schools. That is the subject I am talking about. It is a measure of their desperation that they must now try to create a situation - Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. I repeat my point of order.

I do not think the Minister is directly attacking the Members of this Assembly in his statement. He is, I think, talking about Communist cadres. If that is so, then he is in order to carry on on that line, and on that line alone.

Perhaps the Member for Anson is not following what I say. I mentioned the pro-C.P. elements. It is a measure of their desperation that they must now try to create a situation in which school children can be pushed into violence so that a few children can get maimed and hurt while the great revolutionaries debate and incite children from the safety of the Conference room. And now I come to the Barisan Sosialis. They are behind this desperate move too, because -

Order. If the Minister wishes now to attack the Barisan Sosialis, then I think the fair and proper thing to do is to move the adjournment of this Assembly so that there will be a debate on his statement. Mr Minister.

Talking of the Barisan Sosialis, on the one hand, they demand complete merger including the application of the Rahman Talib education policy.

Order. The Minister is now making a ministerial statement. Now, if he makes a ministerial statement which attacks a Party or individuals in this House, then it is proper that he should allow a debate on the statement. As I have indicated, the way to do that is for him to move the adjournment of the House, allow a debate to carry on on his statement, and at the end of the debate ask for leave to withdraw the motion. Then the business of the House can go on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are prepared for a debate. So may I -

Order. The time to move the adjournment is at the end of the statement. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind.

I will come back then. Since June when the pro-C.P. elements decided to challenge the Government on the merger issue, the Communists have been straining every nerve to mobilise forces against the Government with a view to bringing it down and sabotaging merger. Their attempt to capture the Government has failed. Their attempt to bring down the Government by constitutional means has failed. Their attempt to capture the Party from within has failed. Their attempt to stir up strikes and precipitate what their followers call the "October Revolution" has failed. Their attempt to stir up revolt in the People's Association has failed. Sir, now they are falling back on Chinese schools. It is a measure of their desperation that they must try to create a situation in which school children can be pushed into violence so that a few children can get maimed and hurt, while the great revolutionaries debate, and incite children from the safety of this Assembly or Conference Rooms. The Barisan Sosialis leaders are behind these desperate tactics up to their necks. They hope to achieve their aim of thwarting merger on the injured bodies of school children. On the one hand, they demand complete merger, including the application of the Rahman Talib Report on Education, which proCommunist Party elements claim is detrimental to Chinese education. Yet, on the other hand, in their Party publication, the Barisan Sosialis - this is from the Chinese edition, Sir - encourage students to oppose and boycott the examinations by giving full publicity to the circular dated 17th November,1961, purporting to be issued by Student Re presentatives and/or Committees of Ten Chinese Secondary Schools, which gives a distorted report of what took place at an interview between my Parliamentary Secretary and a student delegation on 16th November, 1961. Further evid ence that the Barisan Sosialis and their pro-Communist mentors are behind this manoeuvre to bring about violent clashes between students and police can be seen from the role that Mr Fong Swee Suan, who is closely connected with the Barisan Sosialis as its Central Executive Committee member, is playing in this dangerous game, dangerous not for Mr Fong and his friends, but for the school children they have duped and intimidated into doing foolish and dangerous things. All the posters and banners supporting the boycott and picketing are prominently displayed on the buses of the Tay Koh Yat Bus, Company and the Paya Lebar Bus Company, the workers of whom are controlled by Mr Fong Swee Suan and his friends, like Mr Chen Saye Jame in the Singapore Bus Workers' Union. A number of interested personalities who were unconnected with the students were observed at some of the centres this morning. At 8.00 a.m. Lim Kee Chow, Assistant Secretary of the Hock Lee Branch of the Singapore Bus Workers' Union, went among the picketers outside the Hwa Yi Government Chinese Middle School talking to the picketers. At 8.35 a.m. Lim Teow Kuan, Vice-Chairman of the Paya Lebar Branch of the Barisan Sosialis, and two friends went opposite the entrance of the Chung Hwa Girls' High School in Bartley Road, generally supporting the picketers. At about 9.00 a.m., Tommy Koh Thong Bee of the University of Malaya Socialist Club faction, which supports the Barisan Sosialis, and three friends visited the centre at Whampoa Chinese Secondary School in St. George's Road. At about 9.10 a.m. Koh Chee Kiong, a strike leader of the People's Association, stopped at the entrance of the Chung Hwa Girls' High School in Bartley Road, stayed for a few minutes, giving general support to the pickets. How did it all happen? For the past five months Singapore has endured a period of trials and tribulations and a rash of strikes because in June 1961, certain Communist-controlled political forces decided that the forthcoming constitutional talks for independence through merger between Singapore and the Federation Government were to be frustrated at any cost. Controversy over the 4: 2 system for the Chinese Secondary School system was first raised by some members of the Chinese School Teachers' Union in their letter to the Minister dated 9th June, 1961. At the height of the controversy some individuals of the Nanyang University Students' Union tried to involve students by announcing their intention to convene a meeting of all monitors of Chinese secondary schools at the Hokkien Association on 9th August, 1961. This move was checked when principals refused to allow their students to attend the meeting, which was accordingly called off. On 5th October, 1961, the 4:2 system controversy was amicably resolved with the Chinese Schools Committee-Teacher Association, an organisation regarded by Chinese educational bodies themselves as the highest organisation for Chinese education in Singapore. The Minister agreed to their request to allow those who failed the Government Secondary IV examination but passed the internal school examination to be promoted to upper secondary classes. Then on 15th October, 1961, the Nanyang University Students' Union issued a Press statement which stated that whilst they accepted in principle the settlement reached with the Committee-Teacher Association, they however considered that the requirement that only those who passed the Government Secondary IV examination can take the Government Upper Secondary II examination was "unreasonable" and should be withdrawn. The first shot in a new controversy was fired. In an attempt to whip up agitation and draw attention to themselves, these student agitators held meetings in schools and resorted to acts of hooliganism. They destroyed tables and chairs in some schools; cut cables of the public address system in order to prevent Principals from speaking to students. They went from house to house to intimidate parents and students who intended to take the examination, and in one case in the. Chinese High School, they carried away the gate of the school. They also dis tributed leaflets falsely giving the impression that the Government was out to destroy Chinese education. On 15th November, 1961, a delegation of 19 students (ten boys and nine girls) from five schools, namely, Yock Eng, Chinese High, Chung Cheng, Chung Hwa Girls and the Nan Chiau, Girls' High called at the Ministry of Education at Kay Siang Road at 2.30 p.m. to see the Minister. The Minister was then in Kuala Lumpur attending the Colombo Plan Ministerial Conference. The student delegation, however, returned to the Ministry of Education the following day, 16th November, and whilst the number of students was reduced from 19 to 14, the school representation was increased from 5 to 7, which now included representatives from Sin Min High School and Seh Chuan High School. This time, my Parliamentary Secretary decided to see them. He patiently explained and answered their representations as follows. Firstly, there could be no change to the Ministry's decision that only those who passed the Government Secondary IV examination can take the Government Upper Secondary II examination. This is normal educational practice anywhere in the world: that a person should pass the lower examination before proceeding to the higher examination. Secondly, that the detailed syllabuses of the Upper Secondary course will be available before the end of the month. The Parliamentary Secretary stressed that the langu age medium of instruction would remain Chinese. Thirdly, there is no intention or possibility of using conversion to the 4: 2 system to eliminate Chinese education. Fourthly, when the Parliamentary Secretary asked the delegation whether they were going to boycott the Govern ment examination, they all replied that they had no such intention. Now, although all Chinese secondary schools had closed for the vacation after completion of the year-end school examinations on 20th November, 1961, it was reported that 121 chairs and 34 desks were found to be maliciously damaged in the Dunman Government Chinese Middle School, obviously with a view to preventing the school from being used for holding examinations. On the same day, it was reported that pamphlets were being distributed in the River Valley Government Chinese Middle School. The same day the Chinese Schools Teachers Union also released to the Chinese Press the full contents of their letter addressed to the Minister dated 13th November 1961, stating that the requirement to restrict candidates taking the Government Upper Secondary II Examination to those who have first passed the Government Secondary IV Examination as "unreasonable". On 21st November, 1961, both the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau gave publicity to the text of a circular issued by individual school supervisors and/or principals of the 27 Chinese secondary schools explaining to parents the importance of the Government Secondary N examination, as the certificate will be equivalent to the present Government Senior Middle III Certificate for purpose of seeking employment in the Government or joining the Teachers' Training College or Polytechnic. This circular letter also pointed out that the Government Secondary IV examination was not com pulsory and that it was left to the students to take or not to take the examination. Parents were, however, advised to encourage their children to take the examination for the sake of their own future and to bring their children to the examination centres themselves. The same day the Member for Queenstown (and Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis) in moving the amendment to the motion on merger proposed by the Minister for Labour in this House, when criticising the Government's merger proposals to retain local autonomy in education, added (I quote his words), "It was a path leading not to national unity, but to national disunity and to war." Yet their idea of complete mercer would mean that the Central Government's policy on education must be followed in Singapore. Even if the Member for Queenstown makes out that he does not know about this, the people of Singapore, particularly the Chinese-educated, know well that this would lead to trouble. In the 22nd November, 1961, issue of the Barisan organ of the Barisan Sosialis Chinese edition, page 4, there appeared a full reproduction of this circular issued by the so-called Student Representatives and/or Committees of Ten Chinese Secondary Schools which gives a distorted report of the interview .given by my Parliamentary Secretary to the student delegation on 16th November referred to earlier. In giving publicity to the students' agitation, which no responsible Chinese newspaper in Singapore had published, it became necessary for Government to issue a statement the same day to alert parents and guardians against antisocial agitators against the first Government Secondary IV examination in Chinese, and advised them to make sure that their children are not used by evil political forces for their own political ends, which has nothing to do with the advancement of education and the future of our children. This explanation was necessary because of the open intervention in the matter by the Barisan Socialis. The statement also informed parents that Chinese secondary schools had already closed for vacation since Monday, 20th November, 1961, at the request of the school principals, and that their children need not return to school for the school examination results, which would be posted to them by the school authorities. Parents and guardians were also asked to advise their children to make full use of the holiday period in the quiet of their homes to review and prepare for the forthcoming Government examinations. So, today, having failed to intimidate parents and students from taking the examinations (some 60 per cent of the students took the examination today), the real leaders behind the student agi tation will no doubt try very hard to disrupt the examinations. The students, the parents and guardians and the Government can help defeat this attempt to intimidate them by ignoring their threats and peacefully going on with the examinations. Parents and guardians can accompany their children by bringing them personally to the examination centres and out of them. Full facilities will be given to parents to bring in food and drinks for themselves and their children, and suitable waiting rooms will be arranged for the parents while their children are taking the examinations. Further, those who could not take their examinations today because of intimidation by the pickets can start the examination from tomorrow. They will be given a substitute paper for the subjects they have missed today. We also appeal to the misinformed students, who have become excited over false allegations of the killing of Chinese education and culture, not to allow themselves to be used by men who have no care for Chinese education as such, or for the welfare and happiness of the students. They have publicly said that if they can get automatic conversion from Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship for their own selfish purposes of standing for election in the Federation, they are quite happy to let education be under the Central Federation Government with all the consequences of implementing the Rahman Talib Education Report. They use these school children as pawns in the dangerous political game of combating merger because they dare not risk their own necks in this dangerous game. I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

The position procedurally now is this. Members are at liberty to debate the statement made by the Minister for Education until 8 p.m. At 8 p.m., if the motion has not been disposed of, it will lapse, and the Assembly will adjourn in the usual way. If the matter is to be pursued further, it must be pursued in the proper way by notice of motion given either by the Minister or by any Member of the Opposition, or by another motion for the adjournment on another sitting day. 6.09 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Education has given us a startling statement in some respects. I can fully understand his position in seeking to make known to the people of Singapore what he believes to be attempts to subvert our school youth to improper political activities. I am with him in his appeal that the educational authorities should have the support of the parents, and the information he has given as to the way they can give that support. I can but regret for myself, Sir, that it should have been found necessary that, instead of just making that statement as a statement of fact of information and of appeal, he should have sought to associate it - I mean, if he wants to attack them, I have no brief for them - not only with an attack upon his former comrades, but also with the merger debate. We have had confusion enough on this issue. Instead of being able to debate the White Paper alone, we have had this irrelevant merger motion brought in, and now we have this further confusion added. I cannot but regret that there is - you will forgive me if I say so, but I say quite honestly, Sir, one gets the impression that he is seeking to make capital out of what is not only an unhappy position, but also for purposes of a debate which quite obviously is not going too well for the Government. I would like to add one or two points, Sir. The Minister had seen fit to mention the name of a person I know well - Tommy Koh Thong Bee - in a context which suggests that he is a Communist or pro-Communist. I say to you, Sir, that I am prepared to pledge my life that that man is no Communist; he is no pro-Communist, and he is no running dog of the Communist. He is one of the finest human beings I have ever met, and I have complete faith in his genuine dedication to the democratic processes as we understand it. I have had occasion, Sir, to watch that man daily for months, and I do say it is unfair, because he may have been seen somewhere near a school, to use his name publicly in this Assembly in order to make suggestions of that character. There is only another small matter. I can see that the Prime Minister is anxious to speak and we will welcome what he has to say.

I am taking it down.

Thank you. Sir, there is a motion before the House for a Commission of Inquiry into education. Now, it seems to me, Sir, that this allegation, if true - I am not seeking to doubt it in saying if true. I am not seeking to make any connotation that it is dishonest. I do not know, Sir. But I do know this and the public know this; that there is deep hate between the P.A.P. and their former colleagues, who are now the Barisan Sosialis and that there is quite naturally now a tendency to take with a pinch of salt any attacks of this character - then I will welcome an assurance from the Government benches than an impartial Commission of Inquiry will be appointed, because if there are human beings in this city who are subverting our youth of school age going to school for improper political purposes, conduct which is reprehensible, then, Sir, we want that information from an impartial tribunal, and we want their condemnation, as condemned they should be by an impartial tribunal -

Agreed!

I am very happy to hear it. I am prepared to sit down if you wish.

Sir, as I have already indicated, I have often been accused of wanting to pillory people in Commissions of Inquiry, and one had been suggested for the People's Associa tion which we readily accepted. I understand the Member for Anson is in correspondence with the Minister for Labour on the terms of reference. Of course, the terms of reference must be sufficiently wide in our view to include a complete and comprehensive survey of everything. Similarly in this, the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry to show how this issue has been built up, and in particular in the last stages, their connection with the Barisan Sosialis and the real leaders - the real leaders, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will forgive me for using that phrase - who are in a position to move the digits on the chess-board. All Members of this Assembly will have to waive their Assembly privilege and be examined on oath.

I am much indebted, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Prime Minister. That is the fair and proper way. I have nothing to add. I am happy by this assurance that there will be a Commission of Inquiry into these so grave allegations and that it can then arrive at an impartial decision. Sir, let me assure the Prime Minister that if, in fact, the Commission of Inquiry finds that there are persons in this Assembly -

Outside this Assembly manipulating those inside.

Order.

- within or without this Assembly, who have conciously subverted and manipulated our youth for improper political purposes, I will be with the Government 100 per cent in their condemnation.

Hear, hear!

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis have been accused of many things. Whenever anything goes wrong with the Government, be it in the unions or anywhere, they always want to link it up with us, the whole idea being to frighten people and to isolate the Barisan Sosialis, and thereby to gain strength for themselves. But as the Member for Anson has said, there is already a motion in the Order Paper which talks of a Commission of Inquiry on the education issue.

What about the connection with the Barisan Sosialis?

Order.

If there is going to be a Commission of Inquiry, let it be, and we will all support it. There need be no diversion at this juncture to debate something else, when we have all our attention directed on to merger and all its implications which the Government is trying to hide.

Is that all?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand this controversy over the 3:3 and 4:2 systems has been raging for many months. I think it has been raging even before the Barisan Sosialis was formed. Just now, the Government accused the Barisan Sosialis of fostering trouble on this issue and the Member for Anson asked for a Commission of Inquiry to which the Government has agreed. Perhaps when this Commission of Inquiry is set up, it will be able to put the picture in a clearer light for the information of the people. Sir, perhaps the Minister will also be able to tell us - because it was after my association with the P.A.P. - how this controversy over the 3:3 and 4:2 systems came into being and who were the persons involved in advocating the present system. Give us a short summary of how it all happened. Also whether his former Parliamentary Secretary endorsed it -

Quite right.

- and perhaps this will help us to clear the air. Sir, I think the Government's suppression of the Press in not publishing news and views on this subject matter of the 3:3 and 4:2 systems and the revolt of the students against these systems has put a dim light on the whole picture. That is why we were taken by surprise when the Minister rose to deliver his statement just now. Had there been no suppression of the Press, I feel that Members today would have been in a better position to debate this controversial subject matter.

On a point of information, Sir. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Is the Member suggesting that there should be a Commission of Inquiry on the suppression of the Press? I am quite happy to have one.

I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister did not do too well ire the first Commission of Inquiry and I think he is just trying to put on a hold front. Sir, we will be having two Commissions - one on the People's Association and the other on education.

Make it three.

I think the Prime Minister knows there is suppression of the Press. He has said that a responsible Press should not print news of students. It was only after the, Barisan Sosialis paper printed this news !hat the Government was forced to issue a reply. Sir, we hope that the Minister will further enlighten us as to how this controversy started and perhaps the Commission of Inquiry, when duly appointed, will be able to throw further light on the subject. 6.20 p.m.

Sir, speaking for myself and for the Alliance, I am indebted to the Minister for having made this statement, because quite a lot of a were not quite sure as to what was happening in the educational field, particularly the Chinese educational field. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not pretend to he any sort of an expert on education, particularly Chinese education, but the Members of the Alliance and I are interested in the youth of this country, be they Chinese, Malays, Indians or he they anyone We expect certain behaviour from the youth of this country certain conformity to certain social patterns which are not anti-State. It is not for me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to go into the merits or demerits of this little controversy. The Commission of Inquiry will go into that and set the whop problem in proper focus and in its proper perspective. But what staggers me, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. The Member for Anson, speaking on behalf of the Workers' Party, has had his say. The leader of the newlyformed Barisan Sosialis has had his say. The Member for Hong Lim has had his say. The three major political Parties sitting behind the Alliance Members have had their say. But what interests me, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that nobody seems to he interested in these Chinese kids who are sitting for their examinations. Not one of them has mentioned the kids here in this Assembly.

Hear, hear!

All that they are interested in are the political implications of the situation and not in what is going to happen to these kids. We understand that the kids are being prevented from sitting for an examination. Sir, I would like to hear somebody from the Barisan Sosialis say publicly here that they say to the parents and to the children to go to 4he examinations without fear. Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

We from the Alliance say it, Sir, and I would like them from behind us to say it too. An hon. Member: Quite right. Thirteen of them too. 6.25 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Education has made a report to this House giving details of student agitators. He has also pointed out that the organ of the Barisan Sosialis has published a statement on the students. In this statement, it is seen clearly that the meeting between the students' delegation and myself has been distorted. The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and I have been seeing each other here almost :very day during the period of this sitting. If the Barisan Sosialis really want to find out the truth and the details regarding this question from the Government, they can come forward or, a friendly basis and ask us what it is all about. They should not have published a statement which distorted the facts in their party organ. The actual truth is this. I heard the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education say that this question of the 4:2 and 3:3 systems should be brought up before the Prime. Minister and other Members for consultation. If there was anything wrong with this 4:2 system he should have brought up this question earlier and tried to find a way out. But unfortunately this question was only brought up after the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis had left, the P.A.P. We know that teachers' organisations and educational bodies have given their valuable views on this system and we have sincerely considered them. We have met representatives off teachers and the Board of Directors and we have accepted their proposals and suggestions. In one of their proposals they stated that they were afraid that the 4:2 system would reduce the period for middle school students from six to four years. At that time, the Ministry of Education's ruling Was that students who failed the Middle IV examination would not be promoted. For this reason, the educational bodies were afraid that the period for middle school students would be reduced from six to four years. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, we accepted their views, that is, all students who pass their school examinations internally would be promoted together with those who pass the Government ex aminations. That was a special concession because, in English schools, if a student should fail the School Certificate Examination he would not dream of sitting for the Higher School Certificate Examination, and even those who pass the School Certificate Examination must have at least three Credits before they can sit for the H.S.C. Examination. In the Chinese schools those who fait the public examinations but pass the school examinations could be promoted to higher classes. In this case, we are making a very special concession by accepting the opinion of the educational bodies. The representatives of Chinese school teachers, directors, and committee teachers have put forward a suggestion that those students who have failed the Middle IV examination can only sit for the Upper Secondary II examination after a supplementary examination. So, if we accept the proposal of the, students, that would mean that if we fail the Malay Std. I examination we can even sit for the Malay Std. II examination. That would also mean that even if we fail the School Certificate examination we can sit for the Higher School Certificate examination. This would cause great confusion in the education system. Therefore, in this respect, when the student representatives met me (I spent almost an hour with them), I explained to them patiently, and I believe I never showed anger before the students. After the talk lasting for about an hour, I opened the door and let them out one by one. Was that not courteous? I do not know what courtesy means if that was not so. To the questions they brought up, I explained to them that, firstly, the cancellation of certain restrictions, that is to say, that those who have failed the Secondary IV examination will be allowed to sit for the Upper Secondary II examination, is unreasonable. If we accepted this, it would mean that examinations do not exist in the education system. Secondly, they asked me whether it was the intention of the Government to use English as a medium of instruction in place of Chinese. I assured them that the Government had no such intention. We will never use English instead of Chinese as a medium of instruction in Chinese schools. Regarding the curriculum and syllabus, they asked me when the Government is going to publish details of the syllabus. I told them it would be done soon. When I refused to accede to their demands, one of the representatives accused me of having an intention to eliminate Chinese education. I told them that I myself came from a Chinese school and that some of my children are in Chinese schools, and that it would be nonsense for me to say that I am trying to eliminate Chinese education. I told them carefully and courteously, "Is there any country in South-East Asia in which Chinese education is so well developed and so free to take its own course?" And I also told them that if at all Chinese education should be eliminated in future, it would be they who would do so. In a statement published in the organ of the Barisan Sosialis, the meeting between the representatives and me was distorted. This organ of the Barisan Sosialis should have clarified the whole, situation before publishing a statement. In the statement, it is said that the Parliamentary Secretary rejected the claims, and turned his face against the reasonable talks about this claim.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Parliamentary Secretary was quoting, he should point out that the statement was given by the students, so as not to give a false impression to the people. This was not what was said by the Barisan Sosialis.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon has reason to doubt the statement published in the paper. I am also very happy to know that the organ of the Barisan Sosialis has made a mistake in publishing this statement. I was talking of the statement published in the organ of the Barisan Sosialis. May I continue quoting? "What we are against is that the 4:2 system should not be used to sieve out Chinese students, and we say that this is a stumbling-block to the development of Chinese education." This statement continues to say that if, after reformation, English is used as a medium of instruction in Chinese schools, then it will be a clear step taken to eliminate Chinese education. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during the meeting I told them clearly and assured them that there would be no such thing as using English as a medium of instruction in Chinese schools. But they said so in their statement. And there is another point. A report in the organ of the Barisan Sosialis says that a reporter of the organ interviewed the students and he noted that there were many slogans and bills posted in the schools and canteens. These posters urged the Government to withdraw the restriction. This means that the organ of the Barisan Sosialis has sent a reporter to visit the schools and the people. The last paragraph of this statement says that there were some slogans saying, "We must steadfastly safeguard the students of Chinese schools and Chinese education. Students! Students! We must not be afraid of storm and rain! The Chinese students want to speak their minds. There will be flowers blooming in Chinese education." I do not want to waste any more time on this statement, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister for Education has said that these students have some connection with the Barisan Sosialis because of this Press report. We feel that any responsible paper should not publish at random a statement of students without making sure about it or consulting the Ministry of Education. Therefore, the situation it present is very sad to many of us, because in Singapore, students in Chinese schools can sit for public examinations using Chinese as a language to answer questions. We know that this does not exist in the Federation. We have noted that irresponsible politicians are now trying to exploit students and agitate them to boycott the examinations. They accuse us of not allowing students who have failed the Secondary IV examination to sit for the Upper Secondary H examination. We have said that there is no country in the world that will allow such a thing to happen, i.e., to allow those who have failed in a lower examination to sit for a higher examination. Any rational people will not dream of such a thing. I would like to find out what are the views of Members of the Barisan Sosialis on this matter. They cannot make use of this as an excuse to agitate students to boycott the examination. They cannot make use of this as an excuse to say that this is a move of the Government to eliminate Chinese education. It would be ridiculous if they said so. When the student representatives met me, they said that they represented all the Senior Middle II, III and Secondary IV students in Singapore. I told them that that might not be so. I asked them, "Are you sure all the students in Secondary IV classes will boycott the examination?" They said that there were some 1,900 students who were not afraid of them and they went to sit for their examinations today. That means to say that these representatives did not tell the truth when they said that they represented all the students in Singapore. It has been proved that the agitators are only some of the students who have been exploited by politicians whose aim is to create trouble and chaos, so that the people in general will believe that this Government has the intention to destroy Chinese education. Let us look at the statement given by the students' representatives. It is a very funny statement - the so-called Secondary IV Students Conference Pro-tem Committee. Somebody will come to the meeting and then another will second it. Let us read a few paragraphs of the statement: 'All these students in Chinese Secondary IV classes are young people who are loyal to Chinese education. In order to safeguard Chinese education, in order to see that Chinese education is not destroyed, we come forward firmly to defeat all those who are trying to do harm to Chinese education. Our parents have, by difficult means sent us to Chinese Schools to receive education. Our teachers are trying their best to educate us. So in order not to disappoint the goodwill and well wishes of the parents and teachers, we swear that we want to be fighters of our education.' Then there is the slogan "Long live national education! Long live Chinese education!" Another statement sent out by the Pro-tem Committee of the Students body is addressed to parents. It is stated there: 'Dear parents, You are trying your best to educate us by sending us to Chinese schools to have a good education. You do so only for the sake that we will in future be useful to society.' And later on, it is stated in their circular that the students believe that the parents will not like the students to sit for this Secondary IV examination, which is, they say, means to destroy Chinese education. Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence by touching upon the speech made by the Member for Queenstown. They want to have the so-called complete merger, that is to say, -

Order. I think the hon. Member could touch upon that when we come to the debate proper.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope that the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis will show their stand here in regard to the boycott of the examination. I would like to know what their views are on this boycott of the examination. If they show that they have nothing to do with the boycott of the examination, then I hope they will appeal to the parents to bring their children to sit for the examination. 5.49 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education make certain accusations against the Barisan Sosialis Members in this House. He said that the organ of the Barisan Sosialis published a statement given by the students. I feel very surprised at this because the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. He was in charge of news, and he was at one time a reporter himself. I just do not understand his lack of general knowledge regarding the publication of news. Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody knows that to publish an item of news does not mean that we are sympathetic towards its contents. News may be published in papers regarding riots in South Korea, but it does not mean that the editor of those papers is sympathetic to or agree with the riots. I am now the Editor-in-chief of the Party organ. In the past, I was Editor-in-chief of the Chinese edition of the Petir - the Party organ of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was responsible for the publication of this P.A.P. organ. I would like to quote an article on 14th August, 1958, about the trade union movement. In this article there was a statement on strikes issued by the trade unions. It does not mean that at that time the P.A.P. was in sympathy with the strikes. For example, on 27th June, 1958, there was report of a strike in the Singapore Glass Factory. Does that mean also that at that time the P.A.P. was in full sympathy with the workers of the Glass Factory in their strike?

The Prime Minister has interjected in Mandarin!

Order. I suppose any Member can interject in any language. But the trouble is that the interpreter might not get the interjection. If the interjection is unparliamentary, I ask Members to get up on a point of order and indicate to the Speaker what the interjection is about. Mr Chan.

(In Mandarin): I was just saying that I am the Editor-in-chief of the Party organ of the Barisan Socialis. When the reporter of this paper asked me whether I should publish this item of news, I considered it carefully because I know that the question of Chinese education is a very delicate one. When I was in the P.A.P. I had a feeling that the po licy of the P.A.P. on Chinese education might lead to some trouble. Therefore, when I was confronted with this item of news, I felt it necessary to publish the opinion of the students themselves for the benefit of the public. The main reason was that all the Chinese papers as well as the English papers said nothing about the students in this matter. Therefore, from the point of news and the Press, it was a bad situation. We see some Members in this House such as the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson, do not know the full story about the situation. I only came to know about it when the students sent me their statement. So I came to know that there must be something wrong about this matter, and I felt that it was correct for me to publish such an item of news. Therefore, in our paper, we published the statement issued by the students which was suppressed by the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said just now that the boycott of the examination by students came as a result of agitation by the Barisan Sosialis. I would like to ask them this. In the time of the Lim Yew Hock Government, there were also boycotts of public examinations, and at that time the present Prime Minister was the legal adviser to the students' organisation. Does that mean that, as legal adviser, the Prime Minister was at that time sympathetic to the action of the students? The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

Yes. I never throw away bouquets which are thrown at me. But if I really do not deserve one, as in this case, then I do not think I should be given one. I was not the legal adviser to the students union in 1953. As I have explained in my radio broadcast, I came to know them in 1954, through the famous King George V Park incident. An unnecessary tribute was paid to me, Sir.

It is a point of clarification, not a point of order. Mr Chan.

(In Mandarin): I think it is better for the Prime Minister himself to look back the old copies of the newspapers to see whether it was after or before the dissolution of the Chinese Students Union. Mr Speaker, Sir, at a Barisan Sosialis Central Committee meeting, some Central Executive members brought up some questions and said that there was some unrest among the students, because everyone of us here had received a state ment from the students. Therefore, we considered carefully what attitude we must adopt towards this matter. We felt that before we knew the whole truth, it would be better for us not to make any decision just yet. In the course of dis cussion, some Committee members asked whether we should issue a statement on the reformation of Chinese secondary education. When we considered it, we felt it was not proper for us to issue a statement. We felt that if we should issue a statement asking the students to sit for or not to sit for the examination, then we would be giving the Government a chance to accuse us of doing things behind the scenes. We know that we are now in such a situation that whatever happens, whether it be some unrest or strike that takes place, we may be accused of being the agitators. I personally believe that if some of the leaders in the City Council strike had happened to be leaders and members of the Barisan Sosialis, we would have been accused of creating social unrest and be again detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Therefore, on the question of students and education, we decided to be very careful before issuing any statement - Mr Lee Khoon Choy rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Mr Chan Sun Wing resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): If the Barisan Sosialis wants to find out the whole truth, how is it that their Party organ did not find out the news regarding the principals and the teachers themselves?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have never published any editorial regarding the matter of the students in our Party organ. That means to say that we are very careful in our attitude towards this matter, so that it will not give the Party in power an excuse to do us harm. We are very clear about the cause and origin of this matter. I will briefly outline the cause of this unrest for the benefit of the Members in this House. The whole question arose when the Government tried to change the six-year secondary education in Chinese into a four-year system. On one occasion, the Minister for Education said in this House that the Government did not have the so-called four-year system in Chinese education. The Minister was not very truthful about it. As far as I know, the P.A.P. actually did not want to implement the 4:2 system. What it wanted to implement was the four-year system, to reduce the number of years of Chinese secondary education by two years, i.e., from that of six years to four years. This is a Chinese pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Culture, wherein is the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for 1960. [Indicating] It was delivered in this House on the 20th of July, 1960. There was one section in the speech on education. It is at page 22 of this pamphlet. It states that, based on the principle of equal treatment, the Government has taken steps to unify all the education systems of the different languages. Primary education has a six-year system. In the final year of primary education, students will have to sit for a school - leaving examination. This public examin ation will be held for the first time this year. The number of years of secondary education will also be unified into that of a four-year system. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat this. Secondary education will have a unified four-year system. It has not been stated that it is going to be a 4: 2 system. In this statement, it is stated that it is the objective of the Government to have a common examination in all the four streams of education. Mr Speaker, Sir, will you please refer to Vol. 13 of our Hansard - Mr Yong Nyuk Lin rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. The Member for Upper Serangoon is referring to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech for 1961. It would be fair, I think, that he should quote the whole paragraph rather than just read a sentence and stop there. It is true that mention was made that the period of secondary school education would also be uniform, i.e., four years. Then he should go on - Malay and Tamil schools having secondary school classes for the first time this year. I mean, he should do that to give a correct picture. Then there is the further two-year additional Upper Secondary education which is not referred to in this instance, because we do not talk of Upper Secondary education when we are beginning with the Lower Secondary education for the first time.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Minister for Education to point out where the Government has stated there is a 4: 2 system. In 1960 -

Order. I have allowed the hon. Member to carry on up till now but I do not think he should go into a detailed debate on the 4:2 system and the 4-year system. That can come, if he is interested, in a motion notice of which he could give in the proper way.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say briefly how events have developed. The P.A.P. Government is implementing the reformation introduced by the Lim Yew Hock Government in respect of Chinese education. Why is it that it is only this year that Chinese education circles have expressed their dissatisfaction? It is because from next year onwards, Chinese secondary schools will not have Senior III and Senior II like the old scheme. There will be no more of such classes. Therefore, many students will be facing a situation where they will have no more chance of studying in Senior II and III. Chinese education circles have also expressed dissatisfaction about this. On one occasion, I pointed this out to the Prime Minister when I was still his Parliamentary Secretary. I asked him why the Government wanted to change the Chinese secondary education system, and why the Government had not consulted the Parliamentary Secretaries before such an action was taken. The Parliamentary Secretaries met and wrote a letter addressed to the Minister for Education. I later received a very long letter from the Minister for Education labelled "Confidential". It accused me of raising this point in my letter and also blamed me for writing such a letter. If the disclosure of this letter, which is the reply from the Minister, will not make me liable for committing an offence under the Official Secrets Act, I will be very glad to disclose its contents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think he is -

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

He asked for my permission to release a confidential letter. I am prepared -

Order. I do not think I can allow all these details to be pursued. If the Member is interested in an all-out debate, then I think the proper way is for him to give notice of a motion.

(In Mandarin): Because the Party in power just now has accused us of certain things, therefore, I feel it necessary to disclose all the things in the past which have led up to the present. I do not want to say too much. I only wish that you will permit me to say something so that the public will have full knowledge of this.

The hon. Member has said enough to indicate that the Minister's allegations are not as correct as lie thinks they ought to be. I think we ought to be content with that position. As I say, if the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter further, he should give notice of a substantive motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me point out here the dissatisfaction of the educational circles. It is because the Government is not prepared to conduct the post-secondary classes. Therefore, when accused by the educational circles, the Government said, "All right, you can carry on with your 2-year post-senior secondary classes." Before the publication of syllabuses, the Government had not done so. Therefore, the students are very concerned over their future schooling and the kind of textbooks they will be using. The dissatisfaction among the students is the result of bad handling of the matter by the Government; in other words, because of the wrong attitude or stand taken by the Government. Let me state once more that we are not aware of the whole truth of what has been disclosed today. We do not quite understand the actions of the students. That is why we want to reserve our criticisms in regard to this matter raised today [Interruption].

The Prime Minister will have an opportunity of speaking after the Member has stopped. Mr Chan.

(In Mandarin): Let me state once more that this matter can be investigated by the Commission of Inquiry. We welcome the Government to do so. The result of the investi gation by the Commission of Inquiry will enable the people of Singapore to know the full facts.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me explain why I must speak in Mandarin to reply to the accusations of Opposition Members. We all know that the racial, education and language problems are - as pointed out by my ex-Parliamentary Secretary - very acute and delicate questions. The Opposition Members have spoken in Mandarin and they claim that they want to safeguard Chinese education. If I were to speak in English, then there would be rumours outside -

On a point of order. This allegation of the Prime Minister is most inappropriate, because it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education who started speaking in Mandarin. He is a better speaker in English than in Mandarin. The Member for Upper Serangoon has all along spoken in Mandarin in this House. So it is quite improper to say that we are using a language to bamboozle the people.

If the Prime Minister said that the Opposition Members are using Mandarin to bamboozle the people, then I think he was unparliamentary. He must not impute an improper motive like that. Mr Prime Minister.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, that was said by the Member for Nee Soon himself. My ex-Parliamentary Secretary has made some progress in learning the national language, that is, Malay. But because he is now in the Opposition he, together with the Member for Choa Chu Kang and others, always speaks in Mandarin. Even the Member for Geylang Serai feels that there is something communalistic - Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock) rose - The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can we ask whether we have the right to speak in Mandarin?

Yes. I was on the point of rising to ask the Prime Minister to get on with his speech, because any Member is entitled to speak in any of the four languages without any question.

(In Mandarin): That is a matter of course. That is why, in order to safeguard the right of speech in the four languages, we have provided in the merger proposals for Members of the State Assembly to speak in any language they wish to. The reactions of those outside this House and of Members inside this House are entirely different. Of course, they understand this full well, because they have been trained by us. The main question is the reaction outside this House. So we must let the people of Singapore know that although some of my colleagues and I have been educated in English we are in full support of Chinese education and its development, as well as of Malay and Tamil education. I have not been able to learn Tamil as this requires time and ability. I want to ask a very simple question. Has the Barisan Sosialis got any stand on the boycott of the examinations by Chinese students? Although the Member for Farrer Park, who speaks in English, does not understand full well the political problem - the Chinese-educated think the English-educated do not understand the political problem - he knows that basically it is a question of attitude: whether you support or are against this boycott of the examinations. The question is whether you like to see the future of some 3,000 students spoilt by a majority of people, and whether they are to have equal opportunities with others in education so that they can serve the State. We have not heard anything about this from two great men - the President of the Barisan Sosialis and a Central Executive Committee member. I feel we must look clearly at the situation today. The debate on this matter today is incidental. As a matter of courtesy, at 5.30 p.m. today, the Minister for Education had to inform the representatives of the people in this House as to what is happening in Singapore. He will then inform the people about the situation through the newspapers and the radio. He has done so in this House purely as a matter of courtesy. The Barisan Sosialis said that this was unreasonable and that they wanted a debate on this. So we accepted at once the motion for this debate.

I think I had better put the record straight. The motion for the adjournment was suggested from the Chair as a procedural device in order that all opinions could be expressed on this statement.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we must therefore thank you for such a suggestion because, by having a free debate on this matter, all those inside this House and the people outside will see clearly in the newspapers that the 13 Members of the Barisan So sialis have said nothing on this important matter. They have only uttered some Live sentences about this matter. I have calculated that carefully. Actually they can speak very well if they have speeches written out for them by people behind the scenes. They can then go on talking for some seven hours. We really admire the energy they have spent on their speeches. Their tone was different. But all of a sudden, without their backseat drivers, they cannot make a clear stand on this important matter. We can now clearly see that it was the Editor-in-chief of their Party organ - he was not the Editor-in-chief of the P.A.P. organ but only one of the editors - who was quite eloquent. But what has he said? Has he touched on the main question of the boycott of the examination? What is the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis towards the boycott of the examination? Do they want some 3,000 students to lose their chances in education? Or do they want to take advantage of the situation to create trouble and confusion? I feel that tonight we must hear the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, because, in my view, his attitude towards this matter is very important. When we came into power, I told my Minister for Education that he was educated in English and that, therefore, his Parliamentary Secretary had to be one who was educated in Chinese or, if pos sible, one who had been a Chinese teacher or a Chinese school principal. In this way, he would have somebody who knew Chinese education full well to assist him. So questions regarding Chinese education must be referred to the Member for Upper Serangoon. His opinion must be valued because he is an expert. What is the result? Regarding the 4:2 system and the 3:3 system, we had a meeting one day of Parliamentary Secretaries. That was not a confidential meeting. We had a very open meeting. We had a very open talk about matters - [Interruption]. I am sorry - ex-Parliamentary Secretaries. My ex-Parliamentary Secretary asked me, when I was Chairman of the Parliamentary Secretaries' meeting, "Why has the 3:3 system got to be changed to the 4:2 system without letting the people know beforehand of its contents and its aim?" Therefore, I entrusted this Question to my Education Minister and his ex-Parliamentary Secretary for them to explain to the Parliamentary Secretaries what it was all about. It was very simple. There was no problem at all. This was a decision made years ago. He never said anything about Lim Yew Hock. I am just repeating what he said. I do not remember whether he said anything about the Lim Yew Hock Government. He said there was nothing wrong with it. The contents were not changed. The system was only aimed at giving the Chinese schools equal status so that they would have four years of secondary education and two years of post-secondary education, which is the same as the School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate examinations in English schools. They are all the same. Therefore, my ex-Parliamentary Secretary said, "I never criticised the contents of the system. All I want to know is why were we not consulted before this matter was brought up?" So when I heard him say that the P.A.P. had two failings - one of them was about the handling of the matter - then I knew he was not a sincere man. He is denying what he had said. Then he added that he was criticising the Government for having taken a wrong stand on education. It is very strange. When has the stand of the Government become wrong? Was it after the Hong Lim or Anson by-election? In fact, this matter took place before these two by-elections. It is very strange that before he was expelled from the Party, he said nothing to the effect that our education policy was basically wrong. It is only today that in his eloquence he says all of a sudden that we are wrong in our stand on education. Wrong in our stand? How is it that at that meeting he did not review our stand? How is it that he said nothing about our education policy? I feel that today we should spend some time on the question of the 3 : 3 and 4: 2 systems. Just now my ex-Parliamentary Secretary said that I had close association with Chinese school students in the past. This question is not one of education, but of students. They are two different questions. When the 4:2 and 3:3 systems became a delicate problem, the teachers held a meeting at the Happy World Stadium sometime in August this year - I think it was on 29th August. At that time I showed them the stand of the Government on Chinese education and Chinese education policy, that the policy on Chinese education must be decided by the Chinese schools themselves. It was not to be decided by us. It was our responsibility to give equal treatment to the four streams of education. Therefore, we brought up this question for the decision of the Chinese schools themselves. We must see clearly that although this 4:2 system has been brought up by the Government itself, he final decision still lies with the principals of Chinese secondary schools. They can only come to a decision after consultation among themselves. Therefore, it is not so easy for them to give trouble. Many of the teachers and principals support the 4:2 system which they have decided to adopt. We have not decided whether we should adopt the 4:2 system. We are only making a proposal. That is the first problem. The second problem is the boycotting of the examinations. If today the Government is not careful in handling this question rationally and try to solve the conflict between the people by way of persuasion, then there may be some trouble. If we were just like the colonial government which resorted very easily to police and other actions, then there could very well have been trouble. And if there should be any trouble, then there would be casualties among the students. Then we would be accused of being merciless and relentless. So we decided to have this matter determined by the students and the parents themselves. We do not force the students to sit for this public examination. We only say that this is a step taken to help the students to have a good future. If they do not like it, well, they can leave it. We cannot use force to deal with questions such as education and language. Therefore, the students' boycott today - I will not say it is actually a boycott, because some students took the examinations and some of them might be unwell and therefore failed to turn up because of this - so it does not mean that these students too are boycotting examinations. It is our responsibility to let them have a chance to decide whether they want to sit for the examinations or not. But it is the responsibility of the Barisan Sosialis - [Interruption].

Order. If the Member for Queenstown wishes to interject, the way to do it is to stand up and see whether the Prime Minister will give way.

(In Mandarin): Well, I will give way and see what he has to say.

Does the Member for Queenstown wish to take advantage of that?

I say that whatever they have done, they want other people to carry their baby.

(In Mandarin): Then I must make it clear that the boycott does not mean that it is a method employed only by the Barisan Sosialis. Even long before this boycott of the examinations took place, as stated by my ex-Parliamentary Secretary, I am only accusing the back-seat drivers of the Barisan Sosialis for having some connection, and therefore I welcome the suggestion of the Member for Anson to establish a Commission of Inquiry first, to look into the trouble as a result of the change of the 3:3 system to 4:2; and second, to find out who is responsible for this trouble. I do not say that all the students are boycotting the examination, because there are some 60 per cent of the students who sat for the examinations. It is also the duty of the Commission of Inquiry to look into the question whether the back-seat drivers of the Barisan Sosialis have anything to do with boycotting the examinations. If the Member for Upper Serangoon, who is at present the Editor-in-chief of the Party organ of the Barisan Sosialis, feels that his statement on this matter [Interruption].

Order. I have great difficulty in following these interjections. If the Member for Upper Serangoon wishes to interject, I am sure if he gets up the Prime Minister will give way.

Come on, come on!

Just now I was only helping the Prime Minister to choose the correct word.

(In Mandarin): Then I must thank him, because very often he used to help me in this. Without his help, I do not think I would be able to speak Mandarin this well. So I must admit that it was only with his help that I have learnt Mandarin and made progress thereon. But unfortunately I am unable to help him in his political thinking. He is still at the stage of young students who are liable to make many mistakes. Because of the language difficulty, I could not explain to him why it would be bad for him to go over to the Opposition. It is a pity that I cannot do so. Partly I should be responsible for his going over, because I cannot help him when he had helped me to learn. Just now he said that he had published the students' statement because of freedom of the Press and freedom of news. He has had close association with me, and therefore, when we parted, I did not say very much about him because of our personal relationship. All of a sudden, good friends have become enemies. I think it is a bad thing to do.

On a point of order, Sir. Delightful though the Prime Minister is as a speaker, we have a merger motion. Could we dispose of this one and go straight to the point? An hon. Member: You started it!

I did not start it.

Order. The Prime Minister is indulging in his skilful way of wandering away and coming back to the point. At the moment, I cannot say that he is very much irrelevant. Mr Prime Minister.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. He has had close association with me. When he was Editor of the P.A.P. organ, he was in full support of the trade union movement as the P.A.P. was. I introduced him to trade union leaders who gave him, news about their own unions. So Mr Chan Sun Wing rose -

Point of order?

(In Mandarin): On a point of clarification. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister said that news came to me only as a result of his introducing trade union leaders to me. But he has forgotten that before I joined the P.A.P. I was a reporter.

(In Mandarin): The Member for Cairnhill knows that the Member for Upper Serangoon was a reporter of Sin Pao, which was closed down, and then after that the P.A.P. gave him some work to do. The Member for Upper Serangoon says today that when he published the statement of the students, it does not mean that the Barisan Sosialis was in support of them. Now we want to talk about how to handle this matter. We will tell them that they are handling this matter wrongly, because the students will look at the paper and say, "Chan Sun Wing has sold us out." This is the first mistake they have made. The second mistake is whether they are sincere. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education asked, "How is it that they publish the views of only one side and not both sides? If there is freedom of speech and freedom of the Press then they should publish the views of both sides." They have asked about our broadcasting station. We are waiting for them to come to our forum. That night, when I was engaged in a debate in this House, I said that in a forum over Radio Singapore they were defeated by the Minister for Finance, and so they did not dare to come for a second round in a public forum. At that time, because of his temper, he said, "At any time and anywhere." Well, at any time and anywhere. The Minister for Education said that it would be better to invite the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis to take part in the next public forum. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose - The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Dr Lee.

I thought I had explained to the House that day why it was that I refused. The debate was coming on Monday. They wanted to have the forum on Sunday. What is the meaning of that?

(In Mandarin): Now I know it is better for him to have another excuse, because after this debate he will be given another invitation to a forum at a radio station anywhere. It is no use using threatening methods. Or we can have a mass rally. All right, let it be.

Order. Can I now ask the Prime Minister to come back to the theme of this adjournment motion, which is this boycott by students? There is no right of reply. I thought that is quite clear. In this debate the Minister for Education has no right to reply. The reply now, I take it, is being made by the Prime Minister.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must give a chance to the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education because if he does not say it today he may not have a chance tomorrow, or he may have consulted his back-seat driver. So it would be better if he could stand up right now and say whether what I have said is right or wrong. What is his attitude and stand on the 4:2 system and the 3:3 system and what is his stand on the boycott of the examination? Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

Point of order?

It is more my asking you for advice whether it is a point of order. The Member for Serangoon Gardens would like to speak, and would the Prime Minister give way to him since he has provoked him into speaking?

That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister has, in fact, invited the Member for Serangoon Gardens to speak. I take it he will give him an opportunity.

(In Mandarin): Of course, I will. I think this is some kind of contradiction-an internal contradiction among themselves. The views openly expressed by their leaders have originally been decided by the backseat drivers. Their 'articles have been written by their back-seat drivers. They have now come here to play some spook show. Today it is a free debate. They can freely express their stand and their attitude, if they have any stand or attitude at all.

There are only five minutes left.

(In Mandarin): Two minutes will be enough for me. There are two questions. What is their stand on the boycott of the common examination, and whether they support the students' boycott? The second question is, what :, their stand on the changing of the 3:3 system to the 4:2 system? Of course, this question can be put to the Commission of Inquiry to investigate. I feel that the Member for Anson has great experience in regard to the exercise of democratic rights. I think the investigation by the Commission of Inquiry will give the 13 Assemblymen a chance to come forward and state their attitude, and disclose how they made use of the students to further their own ends to destroy our merger.

Order. I want to make it quite clear that in this particular case the debate will end at 8.00 p.m. An hon. Member: One minute democracy!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to our Standing Orders, we do not provide that the motion cannot be debated until we reach 3.00 a.m. or 4.00 a.m., because we have the right to set aside the Standing Orders. But I feel that they are rather excited. Perhaps they have something to tell me. That is why I want to give them a chance to speak on this matter. 7.58 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not expect the Prime Minister to give me only two minutes to speak. I will reply to certain allegations made. First, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education talked about what I had asked him a few days ago in the C.P.A. Room about the matters raised today. I have received five letters from the students, who have also sent this letter to every Assemblyman. I think every Assemblyman and every political Party has received this letter. I will ask him how he deals with this matter. But I did not expect that he would keep this matter in his heart without disclosing his intention as to what he wanted to do with it. The second point is this. I have left the Government for about four months. For two years, when I was with the Government, there had never been any incident. But today, when anything happens, the Government pushes every responsibility and blame on my shoulder. This is not reasonable. Perhaps in case there may be further occurrences or incidents, then the Government will push everything on to my shoulders. It is not reasonable on the part of the Government. The third point is that we must remember that when this incident occurred recently at the Parliamentary Secretaries' meeting, we know that the opinion expressed at this meeting would not be -

The present motion for adjournment lapses. May I ask the Leader to move a new motion for adjournment?

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Mr S. Rajaratnann] Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.