Hansard, 1961-11-29

asked the Minister for Labour whether (a) Government would consider tabling a White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood (Cmd. 5 of 1957) and the Report to the Government of Singapore on Social Security Measures (Cmd. 56 of 1957); and (b) he will indicate what measures Government has in mind for this Session in the fields of social security and unemployment insurance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has studied not only these two Reports, but three other Reports on this subject. Each of these Reports examines the findings of the Committee receiving it. All these actions had been taken under the previous Government resulting m proliferation of paper without any decisions. The view of the Government is that these measures cannot be proceeded with unless the support of organised labour is obtained. Without it, the implementation of social security is impracticable. My Minister had already stated, in answer to a previous question, that leaders of certain sections of organised labour had opposed the introduction of social unemployment insurance on a contributory basis. These leaders are Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, S. Woodhull, D. Puthucheary and the Member for Thomson. To force contributory social security against the wishes of organised labour is something which does not appeal to this Government. The Government considers that these measures can only be successfully introduced if both the unions and employers are prepared for a contributory social security scheme. The unions and employers will be asked for joint discussions and the Government hopes that after a thorough exchange of views, agreement can be reached on unemployment insurance as the first step to a more comprehensive social security scheme.

Am I to understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in fact, there have been no discussions in the past on this aspect?

May the Member repeat the question, Sir?

If I might assist, the Parliamentary Secretary said that discussions will be held with unions and employers. Does that mean that there have been , no discussions in the past on this vital issue?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as consultations between union leaders and the Government are concerned, they have taken place, but not discussions between Government and the employers yet.

Would the Government consider publishing a White Paper in respect of its own recommendations and the course of events which have arisen since it made those recommendations? The people of Singapore are entitled to know.

It is a supplementary question. Mr Wee.

As I have said just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, Government hopes, through discussions with the parties concerned, i.e., employers and unions, that it will be able to find a basis of introducing the social security scheme,

When is it anticipated that these discussions will be held?

Of course, Mr Speaker, Sir, as soon as the Minister is convenient to look into this matter.

asked the Minister for Finance what is (a) the actual revenue for 1960 compared with that for 1959; and (b) the estimated revenue for 1962 compared with that for 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. The actual revenue for the year 1960 was $311,264,201 compared with $274,918,527 for 1959, that is, an increase of about $36.3 million. The 1962 revenue estimate is $391,109,000 compared with the 1961 estimate of $344,808,610, that is, an increase of roughly $46.3 million.

2.37 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That the following Members be added to the Select Committee on the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill:-

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Members be added to the Select Committee on the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill:-

2.40 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." 2.41 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, yesterday I talked about our proposal which would look after the welfare of the people who would not be deceived by the machinators. Therefore, our Party Chairman's amendment will show clearly who is real and who is false: who is true and who is untrue. In fact, although they talk about merger, it is not a real merger. They are cheating the people. Mr Speaker, the amendment moved by our Party Chairman is truly in accordance with the hopes and aspirations of the people. Here, we can see how the workers, farmers and people in all walks of life in Singapore react against the P.A.P.'s merger. All the people have raised their points of view, but the leadership in the P.A.P. still refuse to listen to the people and secretly carry on their act of selling out the people. Mr Speaker, the people are very realistic about citizenship. That has made the P.A.P. talk ambiguously. Their aim has been disclosed very gradually. Our Chairman, by using simple terms, has very clearly and systematically explained to the people our opinions. No matter how eloquent they are, they still cannot speak against us. They cannot defeat us verbally. Mr Speaker, from the debate of the past few days, no wonder people at large have all stated that the P.A.P. now and the P.A.P. of former days are different. This is really true. The people at large are right. They are 100 per cent correct. We can see the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Labour making eloquent speeches to try and deceive the people. They use all sorts of means to achieve their aims. Mr Speaker, Sir, now I want to quote the Member for Cairnhill's speech. In the second day of his speech, he denied what he said on the first day. He said that he was not opposed to the Barisan Sosialis' motion, but that the Barisan Sosialis had special motives. Mr Speaker, Sir, his speech appeared to be rational. This motion is apparently a real one. After analysis, we can have a more rational approach and we can express the people's views. We hope that everyone will think of the people's interests and try to attain the reunification and merger of Singapore with the Federation, but not by false expressions to deceive the people. Only by this will the people's wishes be expressed. Mr Speaker, Sir, the sincerity shown by our Party Chairman in his speech is now wasted. From the speech of the leader of the S.P.A., you can see that we are sincere. We are fighting hard so that our citizenship rights will not be sold out. If the citizens of Singapore cannot automatically become citizens of the Federation, then it is not a real merger. In this respect, the S.P.A. are more honest and more frank than the P.A.P. leaders. But they are opportunistic because, on the one hand, they support the P.A.P. and, on the other hand, they attack the P.A.P. This contradictory attitude is laughable. The general masses already know their true colours. But the leaders of the P.A.P. are more dishonest. They continue with their sophisticated arguments and they can only repeat what the Prime Minister has said. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance said that from 1954 to 1959 anti-colonial forces united together to fight the British. In those days, the P.A.P. saw fit to unite with all nationalists - even with the Communists - and all other anti-colonial forces. They said that it was a three-cornered fight amongst the nationalists, Communists and the P.A.P. at that time. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are talking about today is whether we are to have a true or a phoney merger. The question is whether we are to agree to the proposed merger of the Barisan Sosialis, which is for the interests of the people of Singapore, or whether we are to agree to the P.A.P. phoney merger, which is to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore. The Minister for Finance talked at length about Communism. His purpose was to confuse the vision of the people from the issue of whether it is a true or phoney merger and to direct their attention to the problem of Communism. He was actually trying to throw a red herring across the path. From this we can clearly see that the P.A.P. are bankrupt in ideas. They do not have any new material to offer. All that they can do is just to go on talking. From our experience with the colonialists, we should fight against this oppression. We should fight for true democratic rights and for the improvement of the livelihood of the people. All this is in accordance with the desires and wishes of the people. It is not a question whether Singapore is a Communist State or not. My purpose in joining the Barisan Sosialis is to fight for the materialisation of parliamentary democracy and for a more just and reasonable society in order to improve the lot of the people. The Minister for Finance has also said that now the nationalists have to part with the Communists and that there should be a clear demarcation between them. Do the P.A.P. profess themselves to be so-called nationalists? If this is what the Minister for Finance means, then I believe the people will reject this kind of reasoning. Since the P.A.P. came into power, the people of Singapore can see through the intrigues of the P.A.P. in putting forward a phoney merger which is intended to sell out Singapore. This is the common talk at street corners. The people say that the Lim Yew Hock Government sold Christmas Island, but the Prime Minister wants to sell Singapore! Therefore, I advise the leadership of the P.A.P. not to disgrace the good name of the nationalists. The P.A.P. are not qualified to call themselves nationalists. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that there are only a few hundred Communists in Singapore. Why should the citizenship rights of thousands of people in Singapore be deprived for the sake of a few hundred Communists? Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to touch on what the Minister for Health and Law said. He stated that the automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federation citizens on Merger Day will not be acceptable to the Federation Government. This is quite honest, but this also goes to explain one point. The way in which the P.A.P. leadership are behaving is very shameful. They want to monopolise the whole thing. If they cannot monopolise the whole thing, they do not want to do anything. They should tell the people of Singapore frankly what they intend to do. They should seek strength from all classes of the people to persuade the Tunku that if that sort of negotia tion is not agreeable in the interests of the people of Singapore, then the terms of such a merger should not be accepted. We can fight for our constitutional advancement by pursuing another method. This would have saved a lot of time of this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister for Health and Law clearly recognises our stand on merger and thinks that it is a correct stand, then he should not waste time arguing about it unnecessarily. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us go on to what the Minister for Culture said. He could only talk about this and that. He spoke at random on things which were entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion. He used very abstract theories. His speech conveyed this meaning. He said that the proposal of the Barisan Sosialis for a merger of Singapore with the Federation, with Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens, will hearten communal parties - such as the P.M.I.P. - in the Federation of Malaya. This argument is not worth rebutting. I hope he will examine carefully the analysis given by our Party Chairman with regard to communal issues and matters relating thereto. We have moved our amendment because it is good for the people of Singapore and Malaya as a whole. There should not be any communal conflicts or any other unpleasant results unless Machiavellian politicians want to create greater differences among the different races. The Minister for Culture also pointed out that the 13 Members in the Barisan Sosialis left the P.A.P. not because of their stand on merger, but because they wanted complete internal self-government. This proves that the P.A.P. are unreasonable on the merger issue. They are irrelevant without giving any reason. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the time of the Anson by-election, the P.A.P. raised very vague merger terms and they asked the people to vote on them. In the end, the people passed very clear judgment on the P.A.P. But the leadership of the P.A.P. did not want to accept the judgment passed on them by the people. They did not want to examine their own hypocritical act but they pushed their claim for -

Order. The Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Tee Kim Leng) appears to be reading a newspaper. There is a Standing Order which I might read for the benefit of hon. Members - Standing Order 48 (d), which says: 'Members shall not read newspapers, books, letters or other documents except such matters therein as may be directly connected with the business under debate.' So I take it that the Member for Pasir Panjang was probably reading matters in the newspaper which were directly connected with the business under debate.

(In Mandarin): They accused us of stabbing the P.A.P. in the back. They made us a scapegoat for their defeat in Anson. But we had been in the P.A.P. for quite some time, and we clearly understand how the P.A.P. leadership treated the people. They used to resort to oppression, and now they fall on all fours in trying to appease the colonialists and reactionaries. The leadership of the P.A.P. claim that merger is now in view. Now that this question is raised, the people have many doubts in their minds. First, everybody knows that the Federation Government has all along refused to merge. And the P.A.P.'s fourth Anniversary Souvenir also stated the reason why the Tunku did not want merger - there are too many Chinese in Singapore, and the strength of the Left-wing forces in Singapore is too great. If there is true merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, it will affect their political status and position. But the number of Chinese in Singapore today is not less than before, and the strength of Left-wing forces is even greater than before. And yet why is the Federation very interested in merger now? Does it mean that the Federation has already changed its original view on merger? What is the reason? Secondly, the British have now changed their attitude towards merger, from one of silence to one of interest. Everybody knows that the separation of the two territories was the result of the colonialist policy of divide and rule. But the present attitude of the British is that they are now very agreeable to merger. Thirdly, the leadership of the P.A.P. have suddenly cried out that merger is now in view, and made use of it as a kind of panacea to save themselves. This is what we doubt very much. We were Party cadres in the P.A.P. before. At that time, the leadership of the Party never pointed out to us the possibility of reaching agreement on the terms of merger. But now they suddenly announce that merger is in view, and are using this issue as a very valuable bargain. There must be some reason for it. In the days when we were in the Party, we already had some suspicion about the leadership of the P.A.P. We found out something - we knew they were prepared to sell out the people, particularly during the Anson by-election, when the Prime Minister frankly said that we should not offend the Right-wing reactionaries. This created more doubts in the leadership of the P.A.P. Fourthly, on the question of merger, why did the leadership of the P.A.P. not seek permission from the people when the merger terms were announced? Why did the P.A.P. dis tort the facts? When our terms of merger were announced, the P.A.P. leadership attacked us and accused us of distorting the facts, saying that we were anti-merger. I think the question of merger is a national issue. Everybody has a right to know. Everybody has a right to give his opinion on merger. Lastly, the people should have a final say on this matter. Why do the P.A.P. try to intimidate those people who have a sense of responsibility? We had asked the Central Executive Committee to accept our views on various aspects, but our views were all turned down or rejected. Instead the leadership of the P.A.P. were very dis satisfied and accused us of many things. All these show that the P.A.P. are determined to sell out the interests of the people. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Culture has said that since we the Barisan Sosialis want Singapore to merge with the Federation of Malaya and form a State in it, why did we also demand full internal self-government? It is very difficult to understand his logic. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Culture, as one of the three great leaders of the P.A.P. and one who was at one time an editor in the Straits Times, could not understand the organ of our Party. This is something which I cannot understand. I think he is trying to confuse the people on the merger issue. This also shows that the theories and arguments advanced by the leadership of the P.A.P. are empty. Today things have changed. We have clearly seen that the leadership of the P.A.P., because they want to keep up their names and at the same time attack the Leftists, insist on having a phoney merger which sells out the people. Otherwise,, they have to accept our amendment to the motion for a merger of Singapore with the Federation. 3.10 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the points of my speech may have already been made by hon. Members of this Assembly. But let me have an opportunity to speak. The objects of my speech are clearly expressed in the Malay language. Mr Speaker, may I give a reminder that the people of Singapore, on the whole, should not get involved when members of the Socialist Front and others talk about politics in Singapore and the Federation, particularly political speeches and utterances about Manchuria and so on. What will happen, particularly in Singapore, if the policy of the Barisan Sosialis with regard to a genuine merger is followed? The Barisan Sosialis fights for the people. Which people, Mr Speaker? Nationalists or Communists? Mr Speaker, if we continue to hear arguments and reasons from the Opposition, in particular from the Socialist Front, why must the P.A.P. plan of merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya be rejected? There is nothing in their arguments that are reasonable. If we study the heads of agreement reached between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, as contained in the White Paper, it will be clearly seen that the contents of the White Paper generally reflect the give-and-take spirit of both the Singapore .and the Federation Governments with a view to safe guarding local and special interests, which form the legitimate rights of the people of the two territories. Firstly, the fundamental rights of the people of the two territories, Singapore and the Federation, will not be violated in the slightest way after merger. The fundamental rights of the people, Mr Speaker, will be adequately protected and guaranteed, as enunciated in the Federation Constitution. Likewise, the special position of the Singapore Malays will be safeguarded and guaranteed in the future. The Federation of Malaysia Constitution includes, among the basic rights of the people of Singapore which will be guaranteed according to the Government's merger proposals, freedom of speech and representation, either orally or in writing and expression of views in healthy publications. The privileges of the people are now being enjoyed. The right of the people of Singapore to follow their own religious belief is also guaranteed in the Federation Constitution, and also the right to form associations, trade unions of workers, to strike and picket, and host of other conditions in accordance with the laws of the State. All these rights of the people of Singapore will be protected and guaranteed in the constitution of the future Federation of Malaysia. Mr Speaker, there are many other basic and fundamental rights which will be assured in the Federation Constitution and which we need not go into in detail. Suffice it for me to reiterate that there will be no discrimination at all between the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation in the Federation of Malaysia constitutional arrangement. On the subject of representation in the Federal House of Representatives and the Senate, the position is much the same as for the other States now forming the Federation of Malaya, such as Johore, Selangor or Kelantan, except that candidates and voters in Singapore can only cast their votes in Singapore. We should, however, bear in mind that, likewise, candidates and voters in the Federation can only vote in the Federation. Nevertheless, Singapore will have 15 representatives in the Federal Parliament. This agreement means that although the electorate in Singapore can only vote in Singapore, and Federation voters can only vote in the Federation, nevertheless Singapore can contest seats in the Federal Parliament. This in turn means that, speaking from the points of view of political Parties and political ideologies, there is nothing to prevent any political Party in Singapore, for example, from forming an alliance with another political Party in the Federation in order to capture power and eventually hold the reins of government in the Central Government, provided that the two Parties can successfully obtain a majority of seats in the Federal Parliament. The Barisan Sosialis Members demand that all citizens should become Federal citizens unconditionally. Mr Speaker, it is clear in this House that this is a demand in extremism. Can we who are in a position of an applicant put forward an aggressive demand so that the supplier will accede to our demand? It is clear that if we merge with the Federation, we must abide by the Federation laws as laid down by the Federation Government. Then only can we say that this is a judicious and parliamentary action. Mr Speaker, you will agree with me that if we ask for the hand of a girl, as explained by a Member from the Alliance, both parties must be prepared to compromise, and whatever agreement reached should be satisfactory to both sides. If we simply try to impose our conditions on the other party the marriage proposal will in all likelihood be rejected. If it is rejected, whom will the Members of the Barisan Sosialis woo next? I believe the reply is Mao Tse-tung or Ho Chi Min. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon, the Prime Minister has explained that if we effect a complete merger with the Federation of Malaya on the basis of Penang and Malacca, this will mean that a large number of our Singapore citizens will lose their citizenship rights. The reason is that many Singapore citizens cannot meet the citizenship requirements of the Federation, in order to become Federal citizens. In this event, hundreds of thousands of Singapore citizens will be frustrated. Citizens of Singapore who are now enjoying various privileges and benefits in Singapore will lose these privileges. These privileges include the securing of Housing Development Board flats, jobs in the Government service, land in the Jurong development scheme, social welfare dole, free education and other social services. Mr Speaker, Sir, only those persons who become Federal citizens and only those who can satisfy the citizenship laws of the Federation can enjoy such privileges. Whereas all the people of Singapore who have hitherto enjoyed all these privileges will lose their citizenship rights. They will be deprived of all the privileges I have enumerated just now, because, according to demand made by the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues, there will be no Singapore citizenship. There will only exist Federal citizenship. Surely the people of Singapore do not want this to happen. Mr Speaker, in the marathon speech of the Member for Queenstown, he touched on the education and labour policies of the Singapore Government. If we were to accept the demand of the Barisan Sosialis, the education policy of giving equal treatment to all language streams would disappear. Likewise, much progressive labour legislation which has been approved by the P.A.P. Government would disappear. This will be the result of complete merger. On complete merger, we will have to abide by the education and labour policies of the Federation Government. The Barisan Sosialis fear that the wrath of the people of Singapore will be on them. Mr Speaker, I would like to explain further the points raised by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They say that the P.A.P. is misleading the people, that the P.A.P. is insincere, that the P.A.P. is cheating the people, that the P.A.P. is bankrupt - blank cheque - and is selling out the people and frightening the voters. I pay no heed at all to all this. But if the Member for Hong Lim says that this is three-quarters merger, I say it means that he agrees to the spirit of compromise. Mr Speaker, it is not surprising to me, if we think we are smart or if we have gone astray, to mislead the others. This is a great sin. I would remind the Barisan Sosialis about this. It is like a parrot who can still talk even now. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown and other Members of the Barisan Sosialis have brought up before this House three main issues.

On a point of order, Sir,Is the Minister for Finance now the Prime Minister?

I take it the hon. Member for Queenstown is referring to Standing Order 48 (a). It says: 'Members shall occupy seats allocated to them by the Speaker.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the House that I have not the same ambitions as the Member for Queenstown has. I was just coming here to clarify a few points with my colleague, the Minister for Health and Law.

Order. I had better clear the atmosphere in regard to that. There is no objection at all to any Member taking another seat so long as he takes it just for the purposes of clarification or having a brief conversation with other Members. But it must be brief.

That is all.

Order. The hon. Member for Delta has such a charming voice that I always say to myself that I should not say "Order" to her. Dr Thio.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying just now that the Member for Queenstown and the other Members of the Barisan Sosialis have raised three main issues. The first issue is based on the term "genuine merger" in the amendment. By that, Sir, they put before the House and before the people of Singapore the issue that their's is a genuine merger and the P.A.P. type of merger is phoney. Then they raise another issue, that their type of merger is complete and the other type is incomplete and, therefore, bad or tiga suku. The third issue raised, Sir, is that on Merger Day Singapore citizens should automatically become Federal nationals and Federal citizens not only in Singapore but that they should also have the right of transferability to vote or to stand for election in any part of the Federation. Sir, as a former school-master and a student of history, I have been very unhappy about this incorrect use of the term "merger". However, it was pointed out to me that since it is being used in the local context to mean any form of political union, therefore, I should not raised any objection. But listening to the debate, I realise that because of the inaccurate use of the term "merger", there has been a great deal of misunderstanding. So the Barisan Sosialis Member for Queenstown has rightly brought us down to the realisation that we must define the term "merger", and he has used the words "genuine merger". Sir, we have been going round and round the merry-go-round, round the merry Member for Queenstown for days and days. I think it is time we go to a proper authority and ask for clarification. Sir, when we go to the historians and the constitutional experts, we find that the information they give us is very startling. It shows that the so-called genuine merger described by the Member for Queenstown is not only not genuine but not a merger! If a diamond claimed to be a genuine diamond is not genuine, how can it be even a diamond? A clear explanation of the term "merger", as used historically to apply to a political union, is given, Sir, in a book written by a Rhodes Professor of History of London University. The book is entitled "Federal and Unified Constitutions" by A. P. Newton. I propose, Sir, to read very short extracts from page 2. He is talking about the State. 'A State's existence continues until society is completely dissolved into anarchy or until it is merged into some other State. The merging may be complete [so there is a case for a complete and an incomplete merger] either by conquest or by voluntary absorption, in both of which cases [and this is the important point], the existence of the merged State has come to an end.' Sir, if that is what a merger is, then what the Barisan Sosialis Member for Queenstown wants is not a genuine merger, because he wants Singapore to go in as the twelfth State. In a genuine merger, Singapore cannot go in as the twelfth State. Singapore politically must cease to exist as a State. It can only go in as a county, as a district or as a province. It must lose its State Assembly. It cannot legislate. In that case, we can then describe a State as a unitary State - an example of a genuine merger. Sir, if this is what a genuine merger really is, in the light of history as exemplified by political unions which are of the genuine merger type, then we have all gone wrong somewhere. By being too loose in our use of the term, we are confusing Members in different sections of this House and also members of the public. I think it is time that we in this Assembly help people here and outside to think rightly. Sir, let me quote two examples of genuine merger. Great Britain is a good example, where England, Scotland and Wales have been merged into one unitary State. There is only one Parliament and these separate States have lost their political existence - Scotland, England and Wales. Northern Ireland, which came in later, Sir, refused to lose its political identity and existence and, therefore, it went in on a special basis, on a loose Federation basis or confederation basis. That is why today we get the grouping described as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (that is, the merged State) and Northern Ireland. South Africa is another example of a genuine merger. The United States of America are not an example of a genuine merger. They are a Federal union. In South Africa, Sir, there is only one Central Parliament. There is no separate legislature in Natal, Cape Colony or the Transvaal. They only have provincial councils. All have been merged under one supreme central government. Sir, there is one danger about this type of merger. Reference has been made to apartheid. Where differences of race and language have not been completely reconciled, it is quite possible in a merged state for one section to dominate Parliament and therefore pass laws which are not quite fair to another section of the population. Sir, in Malaya we had a genuine merger type of political union from 1946 to 1948. That was the Malayan Union. It lasted only three years, Sir, because the Malays all over the Federation protested strongly against this type of political union. The result was that it was abandoned and the Federation of Malaya was restored to them in 1948. So there is no real example today of a genuine merger -

3.36 p.m. The Minister for Culture and Acting Leader of the House (Mr S. Rajaratnam) rose -

On a point of order?

Yes. It is a point of order affecting the privilege of a Member of this House.

Will the Minister make his complaint?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to raise a question of privilege of this House and its Members. The Government Whip, who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, has been prevented by picketers from attending today's Legislative Assembly sitting. At 2.15 p.m. today, when he was leaving the Ministry of Education at Kay Siang Road to attend this sitting, some 300 picketers, who were ostensibly there for the purpose of preventing students from going into the schools to take the examination, stopped him at the junction of Kay Siang Road. They surrounded him and abused him and refused to let him through to attend this sitting, despite the fact that he explained to them that he was on his way to attend this Assembly sitting. The Parliamentary Secretary was already aware that at the T.T.C. earlier this morning, rowdy picketers, who wanted to intimidate students from taking the examinations, had resorted to violence and hooliganism. Stones and bottles were thrown at the candidates. Therefore, Sir, not wishing, under the circumstances, to force his way through and thereby cause an incident in which the police would have to interfere and would then be falsely accused of manhandling students, the Member for Bukit Panjang did not force his way through. He is now beleaguered in the Ministry of Education.

The Parliamentary Secretary?

Yes, Sir. Sir, there may be an impression outside among these picketers, who are now turning to hooliganism, that some Members of the Assembly support their pickets and these acts of hooliganism. I would ask you, therefore, 'Sir, to clarify the rights of Members of this House. In particular, Sir, I would request you to ask all Members of this House to endorse the motion that no Member of this House should be prevented from standing or leaving sittings of this Assembly under any circumstances whatsoever. I seek your guidance, Sir, on enforcing the motion which was formally moved by the leader of the House on 20th of November and approved by this House, which reads as follows: 'That this Assembly orders that the Com missioner of Police do take care that during the present session of this House the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in the passages leading to this House. and that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and that the Clerk of this Assembly do communicate this order to the Commissioner aforesaid.' Sir, I ask, therefore, that the Members of this House approve this motion, that no Member should be obstructed or intimidated from doing his duty as a representative of the people.

I do not suppose the Minister is really moving a motion. This is not the time to move a motion. I understood the Minister to say "motion"?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was seeking your guidance on this matter.

Of course, I must be satisfied - I am, in fact, satisfied - that the matter complained of does prima facie affect the privileges of the Assembly, and that the complaint alleging a breach of privilege has suddenly arisen. Therefore, under our Standing Orders, the matter must be referred to the Committee of Privileges, and it is accordingly so referred. But I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the fact that we have a Privileges Bill which the Government had intended to put through all three stages on a Certificate of Urgency, perhaps anticipating that trouble of this nature would arise and that Bill has now been referred to a Select Committee. It will, of course, take some time before it is passed. Under that Bill, if, in fact, the police had arrested any stranger who had prevented the Parliamentary Secretary from coming to the Assembly, that stranger could have been brought before this Assembly and could have been dealt with at once. But we are now operating under the old Privileges Ordinance, and section 15 of that Ordinance is the relevant section. It reads 'Any stranger in respect of the Assembly who -

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two points arising. I mentioned one whets I raised this question. Though I concede the point that the Committee of Privileges has not come into being, there is an impression outside among the picketers that some Members of this Assembly are not with this House in condemning them, and are also perhaps with them in their attempt now to prevent Assemblymen from coming to this Assembly. A member of this Assembly who wanted to come to this Assembly informed the picketers that he wanted to attend a sitting of this Assembly, but he was prevented. Therefore, one way would be for this House to make it quite clear to the picketers that any attempt by any picketer to obstruct Members of the Assembly from performing their duties will not be condoned by any single Member of this Assembly.

Hear, hear!

That is the first point which I think will greatly assist Members in being able to perform their duties. If it is made quite clear outside that any attempt by any outsider to interfere with the right of Members to attend this Assembly would at least be condemned by this Assembly, then it would certainly have a salutary effect. On the other point, I would ask for your guidance on a practical issue. There is a Member of the Assembly who has been intimidated into staying in the Ministry of Education. How do you propose to help him out of a situation which as you yourself indicated earlier, has been brought about because, rightly or wrongly, there were objections to the rushing through of the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill? Therefore, we are now put in a situation where a contingency has arisen, where one of our Members is de liberately prevented by picketers from coming to this Assembly. Therefore, I am seeking your guidance on the second end more practical issue of how to ensure the attendance of the Member for Bukit Panjang here. I also understand that the Minister for Education may be in a similar predicament. There are two points. First, Members of the House will make it quite clear that any picketers who interfere with the rights and privileges of the Assembly will meet with public disapproval, and secondly, your guidance on the more practical matter of how to deal with this situation.

On the first point, it is up to Members either in this Assembly or outside the Assembly to make definite pronouncements on the matter. I cannot, of course, ask them to do so. But they as Members of the Assembly would, I take it, wholeheartedly approve any action which might punish any stranger who is guilty of a breach of the privileges of this Assembly. On the face of it, it is clear that a breach of privilege has been committed. On the second point as to what can be done, all that comes to my mind is that, prima facie, an offence has been committed by a stranger or strangers and, therefore, we must rely on the police to bring that stranger or those strangers to book. I suppose by that means the Parliamentary Secretary - and the Minister for Education if he is being hindered - would be released and perhaps escorted to this Assembly House. As far as the Assembly is concerned, nothing further can be done.

Sir, I am sorry if it is really true that this Assembly is reduced to a state of impotence as a result of our not having passed the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill. But surely, whilst we may not have executive powers, it is our duty as a Legislature to express the collective will of the people so that all can know which side this House is on - for law and order according to the rules laid down by the representatives of the people, or according to the rough-house of stones and bottles and mobs and hooligans. Since you have so expressed yourself as discharging your functions as Speaker in drawing the attention of Members to relevant sections of the Ordinance, and more or less indicating that perhaps the police should act, may I say that it is not a question of the police being unable to act but of the Ministers restraining them from going into a situation in which it would be said subsequently that innocent young students were manhandled by burly bullying policemen. For this reason, the Minister for Education, who is not here today because, as I understand it, he is beleaguered, has not allowed the police to intervene in any of the incidents relating to the intimidation to enforce the boycott. If you would allow us now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest, as a matter of urgency, to move a motion first, that we condemn this conduct, and second, that we as representatives of the people call upon the police - not the Government calling upon the police - to ensure that those sections of the present Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance are enforced.

Perhaps you would permit a suggestion? I would like to suggest that since this seems to be a matter of urgency - if we are to accept the Government's statement - that you authorise the Serjeant at Arms together with leaders of the Opposition Parties here to proceed to the place where this gentleman is supposed to be beleaguered. I am offering myself.

Order. All that I can do is to say that the matter will have to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges. It might be too late but it has to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges, proper evidence taken, and a decision arrived at. What effect a motion of the nature proposed by the Prime Minister will have, I cannot say. It is up to Members to indicate what effect that motion will have. I myself will give my consent to a motion of that nature being moved, and it is up to hon. Members of this House to express assent whether or not they wish a motion of that nature to be moved. Could I have the terms of that motion, to start off with?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest perhaps the Acting Leader of the House should move, That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Acting Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally prevented the Member for Bukit Panjang from attending this meeting and dis charging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

A motion of that nature, of course, would require notice under Standing Order 32 which reads: 'Notice shall not be dispensed with in the case of a motion or in respect of any other proceeding for which notice is required except with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present.' I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved? Hon. Members: Aye.

There is no dissentient voice. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I formally move, That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Acting Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally prevented the Member for Bukit Panjang from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Motion handed in.

I think the Member should be described as "the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking now from memory, but may I suggest that the question of privilege is not the privilege attaching to him as Parliamentary Secretary but to him as a Member of this Assembly?

Order. I think that can he brought out in the debate. I am just trying to decipher somebody's handwriting which seems to be as bad as mine!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already indicated the circumstances which have induced me to raise this matter, but it is a bit more pertinent that a motion of this kind should be endorsed by the House in view of our failure to pass the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill, we are powerless. So a motion of this kind would at least indicate that if anybody at any time, not only now but in the future, prevents any Member of this Assembly from discharging his duties, we would have the approval of the whole House in any method we might resort to to ensure that the rights and privileges of an Assemblyman are safeguarded, even to the extent of calling on the police to ensure that his rights are safeguarded. Therefore, it is not only a matter affecting the present case, because if there is any wavering now, any equivocation, then it is quite clear, Sir, that this is the green light for hooligans of any sort to beleaguer Assemblymen, intimidate them and prevent them from discharging their duties as Assemblymen. Especially, Sir, in view of the fact that until such time as the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill comes into being, obviously any hooligan, any thug, any gangster can, with impunity, prevent Assemblymen from attending to their duties in this Assembly. Therefore, it is, I think, quite clear that no single Member of this Assembly should have any doubt as to what his attitude should be on this motion.

The Question is as proposed by the Minister. I am having that motion typed, but Members are at liberty now to speak on the motion. 4.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we on this side of the House feel that a motion such as the one moved by the Leader of the House should, in fact, have the support of the full House. We agree with him. But what we are still a little uneasy about is that a complaint has been made, and that there is no investigation into the complaint, and we are not assured whether the fact that the Member for Bukit Panjang has not been in this House is that he was obstructed, or that he has wilfully decided not to come, thereby bringing this matter into the forefront. We would be very happy to associate .ourselves with the motion, Sir. If it is only a motion of principle which says, "That this House condemns in the strongest terms any people or any group of people who wilfully obstruct a Member of this House, a representative of the people, from entering this House to fulfil the functions to which he has been elected into this House", then we feel that the words used by the Acting Leader of the House are not quite becoming of the spirit in which this motion should be moved. This motion, Sir, should have no political implications nor should it be politic. It should merely express the feeling of the Members in this House that any Member who is privileged to sit in this House should not be obstructed from coming into this House. And if the Government is prepared to amend this motion so that political implications are taken out of it, and presumptions and assumptions are taken out of the motion, then we are quite prepared - we are, in fact, fully prepared - to support the motion, Sir.

Is the hon. Member then seeking to move an amendment?

Sir, what we seek to move is more than an amendment. We seek to ask the Government to rephrase or reword the motion, so that words like "hooliganism" and all those things are taken out, and so that it becomes only a motion expressing the principle to which we are all committed, that is, any Member of this House should not be obstructed from entering this House to perform his functions.

I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to ask the Government to rephrase a motion. If he is not satisfied with the motion, then he moves an amendment and the amendment then could be debated.

Sir, perhaps I might be permitted to go just a little bit beyond that? In view of the fact that the Acting Leader of the House has asked for a unanimous vote on this motion we are asking the Government whether they are prepared to rephrase the motion so as to express only the principle of it, in which case he may very well get the unanimous support of the whole House. I think, Sir, we are more concerned with the principle behind it and not the politics behind it.

So the hon. Member is not moving an amendment? I just want to be quite certain about that. If the hon. Member wishes to move an amendment, then this is the time, unless he wishes to move it later on.

Sir, if the Government is prepared to rephrase the motion, we -

Order. I thought I made myself very clear. The motion is a motion by the Government. And if it is to be altered, it has to be altered by an amendment.

We will move an amendment, Sir.

May I just make the point clear, Sir? We are not interested in abstract principles -

Order. The Prime Minister will have the opportunity to debate the amendment when it is moved.

May I suggest that we adjourn this sitting to allow us to make an amendment?

It is a waste of time.

Order. The motion is being typed. It will be ready in about ten minutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that we suspend for a short time?

Sir, whilst the motion is being typed, perhaps you will allow me to make an elucidation of the Government's attitude to this, because the Member for Nee Soon was extremely anxious that he should not move an amendment but that the Government should be asked to rephrase it. And I would like to clarify that position, although you have very kindly indicated that the proper way is for him to move an amendment. But, nevertheless, the public impression is, of course, that he has made a request for rephrasing to which the Government must respond.

Is the Government prepared to respond to that? Did I understand that to be the case?

I must respond at least in indicating the Government's view to it. The Member for Nee Soon was extremely reluctant to move an amendment for various reasons of his own, although he does not alike the word "hooligans" and perhaps one or two other words. And he has asked us to rephrase. You have pointed out to him that that is not the proper way. He must amend if he wishes it to be removed. Sir, no doubt the debate will go on to its logical conclusion where if there is no unanimity, sides are taken to the discomfiture of the people who take the wrong side. I am concerned that there should be no misimpression on the Members, the Stranger's Gallery, the Press and the general public outside, that what we are debating now is not a question of abstract principle but two Members of this Assembly who are at present beleaguered. And, therefore, I would like to say that no matter how the thing is phrased or rephrased, as it stands it assumes nothing, Mr Speaker, Sir. It only assumes that this House endorses the principle that the law should be enforced against these people, be they students or whoever else.

Order. That, I think, is what the Member for Nee Soon doubts. And that is why he wishes to make an amendment. I have a copy of the motion; I shall check it first. Now, in case hon. Members have not heard the exact terms of the motion, these are the exact terms of the motion - copies are being made 'That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.' I might, for the guidance of the Member for Nee Soon, indicate that any amendment which seeks to enlarge upon this motion will be wrong. Any amendment which seeks to lessen the effect of the motion will be correct. Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

No, Sir.

Then I am afraid the Member will have to wait. Members conferring:

It would appear that it will be convenient that I suspend for fifteen minutes. I will take this Chair again at 4.30 p.m. Order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.13 p.m. until 4.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 4.30 p.m.

Order. Order. Mr Rajaratnam rose -

Mr Minister wishes to rise on a point of order?

I have a further report to make.

I will take the motion first. The motion before the House is, "That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance." The Member for Nee Soon has the floor, but a further statement, of some importance I take it, has been received by the Minister. Is there any objection that he should add this to his statement? Hon. Members indicated none.

Mr Minister.

Sir, since the motion was put before the House and during the adjournment we have received information that when the Minister for Education and the Parliamentary Secretary decided to come down and break through, the picketers, for some mysterious reason, this time agreed to allow them to come here. It is a very odd coincidence, Sir. But, anyway, that only reinforces the need for future protection of Members. This motion should be passed with the assent of the full House today.

The Member for Nee Soon.

The Member for Queenstown will move the amendment, Sir.

The motion at the moment is before the House. Dr Lee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we heard that explanation just in time. We knew that things like that would happen, Sir. These were all conjured up. We get strip-tease politics, strip-tease revelations, the whole idea being that they could surprise us with new moves every second. This is not the proper way for the Government to deal with important matters, Sir,If there are important things, let them be known to the House.

Order. The matter has been raised as a matter of privilege, and the Committee of Privileges will have to sit on it. This motion is an interim motion referring to a particular incident. Is the Member for Queentown alleging then that the information is false?

Yes, Sir.

Order. I would, of course, warn the Member for Queenstown that if he makes that allegation without any substantiation, then he might be before the Committee of Privileges.

Let me explain, Sir. You yourself heard of the Tommy Koh incident yesterday. It is right before our eyes, Sir. How do we know that this time they have got their facts correct?

On a point of elucidation, Sir, before the Member commits himself further.

If the Member gives way.

No, Sir. An Hon. Member: Coward.

Order. The Member does not give way.

Knowing how the Government always twists and turns, Sir, and having the clear precedent of Tommy Koh's case right before our eyes, you cannot blame us for having doubts on Government statements. Under those circumstances, we cannot possibly accept this motion and we wish to make an amendment. I move, Sir, In line 3, to leave out "who", and to insert therein "if in fact such hooligans", and also, Sir, In line 7, to leave out "the police" and therein to insert "all party leaders to proceed to such scene at any time necessary and to report back to the House for further action".

To leave out from "upon" to the end in line 7, is that right?

From "upon" to the end.

May I have the amendment? Amendment handed in.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Yes.

I am much obliged, Sir,I understood the Acting Leader of the House to ask approval of police action because of the persons being beleaguered and consequently they would have to be rescued. But in the circumstances now that they are freed, and in the light of the exact provisions of our Privileges and Immunities Ordinance, it seems to me that that part is now tautologous. I would ask whether the Acting Leader of the House would consider that aspect.

Would the Acting Leader of the House like to reply to that point of clarification?

Yes, Sir. It is quite clear, Sir, that within a few minutes of a motion of this kind having to be debated, there is a lot of agitation. It is not for me to mention that outside the Chamber a lot of phone calls were made, and they had a salutary effect. But it is essential, Sir, that this business about beleaguering people in schools will not end today, it would -

Order. It is only a point of clarification. The Member for Anson wishes to know whether the Minister wishes to retain these words in relation to police action in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Education are no longer beleaguered. That is the only question. The answer is "yes" or "no".

Yes, Sir.

On a point of clarification, Sir. I understand the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown.

Order. We had better wait for the amendment. I would like to read it very carefully first before I decide whether it is in order. Could I have the last part of the amendment, please? To leave out from "upon" to the end in line 7, and therein to insert -?

And then to insert therein "all party leaders to proceed to such scene at any time necessary and to report back to the House for further decision".

"Such scene", meaning the Ministry of Education, does it not? I just cannot understand it.

This one, at the present moment, is consequent on the report that came to us a little while ago, and does not apply any more, Sir. Therefore, I am talking on general principle.

That is what I understood.

I did indicate before the adjournment that the effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question. Now the motion itself relates to a specific incident, and in so far as the first part of the amendment is concerned, that is in order, when the Member seeks to leave out the word "who" in line 3, and to insert "if in fact such hooligans". The second part of the amendment seeks to open out a matter of principle which, of course, enlarges the present motion which confines itself to a specific incident. The second part of the motion calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits in this particular instance are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Therefore, as the Minister has indicated that he does not wish to withdraw that part of the motion, the motion is still a motion with specific relation to a specific incident, and therefore the amendment which seeks to open out a larger matter of principle is out of order.

Under those circumstances, Sir, I withdraw the second part . 4.45 p.m.

The question is, "That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans who illegally pre vented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance." Since which an amendment has been moved. In line 3, to leave out "who" and there to insert "if in fact such hooligans". The Question is, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out."

We accept the amendment. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! At this juncture the Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin) walked into the Chamber [Interruption].

Order. I am just trying to see whether the amendment makes sense. Does it make sense, Mr Minister?

I assume the first amendment, not the second - "the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parlia mentary Secretary to the Minister for Education,".

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment?

Sir, I am very happy to see this collaboration on a matter vital to the House. One cannot but take a serious view of conduct of the character alleged on the part of school children. But I would -

Order. We are on the amendment now, which is the addition of the words, "if in fact such hooligans". Amendment agreed to. Original Question as amended proposed, "That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance".

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot understand. At the time the motion was first moved, the second part of the motion, calling upon the police was logical in the light of the probable need to force an entry to rescue the Member. But now that he is free, I find myself at a loss to understand what steps it is expected that the police should take. As I understand our Privileges Ordinance, Sir, the only steps that would be available and that would make sense would be to replace the word "police" with the words "State Advocate-General", because it is he who issues the fiat for the purposes of prosecution, and not the police. I am not seeking to be obstructive in any way, Sir,I am happy that the amendment is accepted and I completely agree with the principle of the motion. But I would ask you and the Hon. Members on the Front Bench to direct their minds to that aspect. What is it that is intended by the words "calls upon the police to ensure", and whether what is intended is that there should be a fiat for the prosecution?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is aware of the provisions of the Constitution in which it is clearly laid down - Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the Member for Anson moved an amendment to change the words "the police" to "the State Advocate-General".

No. I suggested it.

I beg your pardon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt that the Member for Anson, being a practising lawyer, is aware of the provisions of the Constitution in which it is provided that the State Advocate-General is the sole arbiter to decide whether a prosecution should be brought or not. This House has no authority whatsoever, Mr Speaker, Sir, to direct the State Advocate-General to adopt any course of action.

Any other Member wishes to speak on the amended motion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion by the Government is a sad reflection of the state of affairs to which this Government has led Singapore. As a matter of fact, the people of Singapore, as individuals have the right to freedom of movement, and it is up to the Government to bear the responsibility to see that every individual, including Assemblymen, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers and Prime Ministers, have the right of movement. The instrument to enforce this freedom and right of movement rests with the Government, i.e., the police. Why should the Government ask the House to call on the police to ensure that the citizen of a State has the freedom of movement? In other words, the Government is abdicating its powers. Sir, I have not had time to go through the sections of the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, but I see that what this Assembly can do under this Ordinance is to ask these so-called culprits to come before the Committee of Privileges and explain themselves, and not to call upon the police to ensure that our Parliamentary Secretaries have got freedom of movement.

Order. May I have the section which the hon. Member is referring to, that this Assembly has power to call upon these culprits to come before the Committee of Privileges under our present law? Could the Member give me the section?

Mr Speaker, this being a surprise motion, we did not have the time to go through the Ordinance and I am not sure whether the Assembly has or has not the power to call up the culprits.

I might as well explain the position again. I think I have explained it at length. The position now is that we are working under the old Privileges Ordinance, section 15 of which says that: 'Any stranger in respect of the Assembly who -

Mr Speaker, Sir, if this is a matter of general principle, we would support it, but if this is only just to ensure that the Government does not want to bear its responsibility of governing the country and throwing the responsibility of governing on to this Assembly, then we say we have to reject it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I disagree wholeheartedly with the Member for Hong Lim. Sir, this is not a matter which concerns the Government. This is a matter which concerns the privilege of this House. Now, this is most unlikely, but it could happen, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Minister for Law disapproves of the conduct of the Members of the Alliance, and for some reason decides to send one of his detectives to incarcerate the whole lot of us and does in fact incarcerate us, and if one of us should be so fortunate as to escape the clutches of the Minister for Law and come running to this Assembly and lay a complaint before you, Mr Speaker, Sir; and the House, what does the House do? Is the Member for Hong Lim going to say that this is a matter for the Government? It is not a matter for the Government. It is a matter which concerns each one of us here - the 52 Members of this House -

On a point of clarification, please. Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I am faced with that situation, before I enter the gate of this Assembly, I will see the police. If I am cornered in that position after I have entered the gate, I will see you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this one instance, I take pride that I, as a representative of the people, am above the police and my privileges are entrusted to the custody of this House, and I will come to this House and appeal to it for my protection and not to the police. Mr Speaker, Sir, now that is the position. If the Leader of the House has misinformed the House of the facts, the remedy is with us. If on subsequent investigation we find that the Leader of the House has misled the House into its accepting this motion, then I think the Leader of the House is up for contempt. But in a system of democratic government, Mr Speaker, Sir, especially parliamentary democracy, we reach a point of time when we must trust somebody. And when the Leader of the House in a parliamentary democracy gets up and makes a statement in all earnestness and all seriousness, the House must accept it and not reject it. We entirely support this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been sitting here for the last 8 days, I believe, debating an amendment to the merger motion moved by the Minister for Labour, which is going to affect the lives of all our people. I have no doubt, Sir, that the Ministers on the Government Front Bench are fully aware that public attention is focused on this House and the debate on the motion. But, unfortunately, in the last couple of days, we have had urgent statements made by Ministers.

Order. I think I, as Speaker and guardian of the privileges of this House, must bring this debate into proper focus. A matter of privilege has been reported to this House. I have referred it to the Committee of Privileges. By leave of the House, a motion has been moved relating to the very incident which has now been referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is irrelevant whether Members are prepared to believe the Minister or not at this stage. The position is clearly that a statement has been made by a responsible Minister and - as the Member for Farrer Park has rightly said - if subsequently it is found that the Minister has misled this House, then he will be prima facie guilty of an abuse of privilege and he will find himself, I take it, before the Committee of Privileges. All I want now is a debate on the motion as it stands. Mr Bani.

Sir, in so far as the principle of this motion goes, we have made our stand clear. We are all in favour of Members having free and direct access to this Assembly to perform their functions. What, in fact, I wanted to ask just now was whether the intention of the Government is to contribute to the maintenance of respectability and decorum of this House.

Order. I shall not allow that. This motion is based on the principle which has been accepted by the Opposition Members. Let us stick to that aspect of the motion.

I shall just say this, Sir. After the motion was moved and the adjournment, the Minister informed us that whoever were preventing the Minister for Education from coming here were not preventing him any more. All that I want to point out here is this. Members of this House do not know, in the first place, whether in fact the Minister for Education and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education were detained. Secondly, we do not know whether they were in fact detained by hooligans. Thirdly, now that we are told that the picketers have dispersed, I do not know whether in fact they have done so. But as far as the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, we agree wholeheartedly with the Government that no Member of this Assembly should be illegally prevented by anybody from entering these premises. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out that in so far as this particular incident is concerned, the place in which it took place is outside the vicinity of this House, and I do not understand why the Government should have thought it necessary to raise this matter here, ask Members of this House to express their views, and to state their stand. I am quite certain that the fact that we have the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and the fact that there is a police force are sufficient provisions to safeguard the rights of any individual - be he an ordinary citizen or a Member of this House. But however, Sir, since this has been brought up here, I want to say, in conclusion, in quite categorical terms, that in so far as the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, we fully agree with the spirit of this motion that no Member of this House shall be illegally prevented from coming to sittings of this Assembly and from performing his duties as an elected representative.

And if they do, they should -

Order. 5.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before the House is something very dear to those who really want to see parliamentary democracy at work - An hon. Member: What do you know of -

Order.

- and not made a mockery of. Perhaps I should inform this House of a little event which took place this morning when I went to work in the Ministry of Education.

Order. I am trying to confine the debate to this particular incident and to the particular motion, otherwise we will never finish. If there are other incidents, perhaps tomorrow will be a very apt opportunity for a Ministerial statement. Mr Yong.

There is, I think, an Order Paper for tomorrow in respect of which as Minister for Education I would have to present the University of Singapore Bill for Second and Third Reading. I was preparing this with my Personal Assistant at around two o'clock this afternoon when my Parliamentary Secretary came into my room and I indicated to him that I doubted that I would be able to come to the Assembly at 2.30 p.m. and that I would have to finish my work first before coming here. He told me that he did not have his transport. So I told him that he could use my car to come to the Assembly. He was accompanied by two security officers and my driver. The car is SS 6103. I believe my Parliamentary Secretary left the office at about 2.15 this afternoon and I decided to walk right across to the other side of the building where I could at least have a look at the group of people who had been picketing Kay Siang Road since early morning. What I could see was my car gradually approaching this nest of young students - boys and girls - numbering between 50 and 60. They were chanting. I remember having gone to Bali to see what is called a "ketjak" dance, where a group of people would sing songs in this manner "ketjak, ketjak, ketjak". I could see from a distance that my car was not permitted to leave and that it had to get into reverse gear to return. They were jumping with joy at their victory to prevent the Parliamentary Secretary from coming to this Assembly to perform his duties both as an Assemblyman and as the Whip of this Government. That, Sir, is what I personally saw. There were witnesses to this. I am sure there were many people in the Ministry of Education who were watching. 5.10 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very fortunate to have got myself free and to reach this Assembly. Events developed in this way. This morning at about 9 I went to my office at Kay Siang by way of Kay Siang Road. I saw a group of students blocking the road. I came out of my car and told them that I wanted to go to my office for duty. I asked them to let me go on, but they shouted a slogan, "Lee Khoon Choy, go into the coffin!" They shouted "Lee Khoon, khoon Choy" I asked them why they did not want to take the Government examinations and they replied, "Your Government want to destroy Chinese education." I told them, "Let us not talk about this. Will you please let me go to my office for duty?" They replied, "No, you cannot do that. You must accede to our request." Then I said, "This is something which I cannot do. So will you please let me go in?" But they surrounded me. I found the situation was not right because they were sitting on the road with their buttocks facing me. I found the situation not very pleasant. So I proceeded to my office by way of another path. There was also another group of students who were not perhaps well organised, and they were shouting slogans. Later on, at 2.15 in the afternoon I borrowed a car from the Minister, because my car was under repair, - I had told my mechanic to take away my car at about 11 o'clock in the morning - to leave the office by Kay Siang Road. This group of students saw me and they blocked me again. There were about seven or eight of them and they pressed against the car. Some of them surrounded me. I told them that I was on my way to come to this House for a sitting but they would not listen. 'They continued to shout that slogan and they would not listen to what I said. As I found the situation was not right and as I did not want to see any incident, I had to turn back. When they saw this, they put up their hands shouting, "We have won! We are victorious!" These are the events which took place. I have forgotten to mention another point. When I went out, there was a member of a radio car following me. If you do not believe what I have told you here, we can let you know the kind of slogans they shouted. Some of them were abusive and I was called bad names. Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

Point of clarification, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Mr Lee Khoon Choy resumed his seat.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education this question. He speaks of a quarter past two. What happened between a quarter past two and the time this House received the motion about 4 o'clock? What happened in the interim period?

(In Mandarin): After my return to the Ministry of Education, I saw a group of students. And since they were still there, I thought it was useless to force my way out. And my staff reported to me that all of a sudden those students dispersed. They had disappeared.

What time was it?

(In Mandarin): This came as a surprise to me because at that time it was round about 4.10 or 4.15, and the time for office hours to be over is half-past four. They told me, "If you want to leave, you can leave because the students have dispersed." But I was wondering whether the students could disperse so easily and so early. And where could the students get the information? Could it perhaps come from this Assembly? I was wondering. Now I have come to this House. 5.17 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have moved an amendment. The principle is the safeguarding of all Assemblymen so that they can move freely in the vicinity of this House. This is without question. We quite agree. But from what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has reported to us, this shows that there is some motive in suddenly moving this motion today. The point is whether there was anyone who had telephoned the students from here about the Assembly discussing this matter, and the students therefore dispersed. We support the motion safeguarding the rights of Assemblymen. But from the motion as it stands, we have ample reasons to believe that the Government is making use of this motion to hint that we have connections with the students. The second reason is that the Government, while debating on a very important question affecting the future of the people of Singapore, were aware that they were at a disadvantage, that there were no reasons or grounds to support -

Order. That is completely irrelevant. Come back to the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, we, in fact, had no need to pass this motion in this Assembly. According to him, the hooligans were only about the ages of 15 and 16, and they were not trying to hurt him or put him in a coffin. There was no such intention. But if he, as an educationist, could not persuade these youngsters and youths, then he should go back and ask the staff of the Education Ministry to persuade the students. But since the Parliamentary Secretary felt that it was a great danger to him and that he needed the whole Assembly to protect him, then, of course, we sympathise with him. But if what he has told us is a fact, then in principle, as our Party Chairman has said, we have moved the amendment. And I hope that after the amendment is passed, the Parliamentary Secretary will feel safe to go to his office. Psychologically he will feel safe. This will give him a sense of security perhaps.

It is a very simple motion, Sir. I think it was useful that we moved and debated it in this Assembly. Sir, we are passing through an extremely delicate situation -

Last days!

Yes, the last days for adventurers who wander off into the unknown, guided by wrong Barisan stars.

Order. He must try and keep strictly to the motion. None of these jibes and counter-jibes.

The position, as we see it, is quite simple. There is absolute calm and reasonable serenity in the City. And a desperate group of people want to provoke an incident somewhere, some place, to cause resentment, chaos, confusion. [Interruption].

Order.

And nothing better, Sir, than the traditional usage of young, little school children. They are young, usually innocent, sometimes misinformed. And if they get injured in a collision with the police, sympathy must naturally go to them. The Member for Anson went through it, Sir, at tremendous cost to his own peace of mind, as he tried very hard through the years 1955-56 to get a semblance of order, decency and fair play. And he went through a lot of stresses and strains. Mr Bani rose -

Point of order?

Point of order, Sir. I wonder if this is relevant to the motion.

I have indicated that we are now debating a specific incident and, therefore, we must stick to it. A peroration is all right, but it should not become too lengthy or go into too much details.

I am not particularly fond of perorations, but I have an aversion to riots where students are concerned.

Hear, hear!

His successor, the Member for Cairnhill, went through an, even more difficult and trying phase.

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the Prime Minister, but we are now debating a particular incident. And if the Prime Minister is allowed to go on in that strain, then, of course, it will open up the whole debate as to who are hooligans, why are the students acting in this way, and so on and so forth. I cannot allow it. We are now asking the House, having taken cognisance of the complaint, to condemn the hooligans who illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary from coming to this House. And the House is asked to call upon the Police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with. That is all.

And that is a great deal, Mr Speaker, Sir, because had we not debated this motion and had we tried to enforce the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, there would have been a riot. That is the point I wish to, make, a very simple one, and obvious to the Member for Thomson. He has been through this drill before, and he is not such an innocent man. We wanted to ask them here in this Assembly this. First, whether an Assemblyman should be prevented from coming to this House, on principle. And second, if he is prevented,, whether the police should enforce the law according to the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Because if we had not asked them first, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst we are debating the proceedings and hearing dreary repetitions which you yourself, I understand, have indicated to Party leaders and the Whip are getting drearier and drearier and more and more repetitious, then the police would have had to intervene - the Parliamentary Secretary wants to get out, the students push the car back, somebody is injured in the scuffle, the police come in, and students would have been browbeaten, battered by the police. Resentment mounts, temper goes up, confusion, wild allegations, rumours [Interruption].

Order.

So we adopted a very simple procedure and a very constitutional one - to ask all Members in this Chamber to state where they stand. And when they were asked to state where they stood, fortuitously, Mr Speaker, Sir, the kids decided to go home. Cannot we at least congratulate ourselves on the forbearance, the patience - I know you must find it a bit trying, so do we on this side of the House - which had saved us a great deal of trouble? But it is not going to end here. Let us face it. The Member for Queenstown has suggested that Party leaders should visit the scene, on principle. And you have ruled it out of order because - obviously such a situation will arise again in the future - he suggested that Party leaders, after a man had been beleaguered, should go there and explain.

Order. That has been ruled out of order, and I do not think the Prime Minister will be in order to refer it.

Sir, I was only supporting your ruling.

Order. I do not think I need any support!

Perhaps that is a wrong choice of words. May I express my deep admiration for the ruling? What is this? This is not the end. And I think the Leader of the House is going to suggest that those who do not support this kind of act, which is bound at least to be provocative - at some stage or the other, a fuss, a bloody nose, a broken arm, the police brought in -

You will be safe!

Order.

- I suggest to those Party leaders who do not like this, let them tomorrow join hands with the parents and stop this hooliganism.

Mr Rajaratnam, in reply? 5.30 p.m. Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

Point of order?

Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether this motion is necessary because the power to deal with people who hinder Assemblymen coming to Assembly sitting is already contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance.

I have tried to explain it two or three times. I do not know whether the Member for Hong Lim is deliberately misunderstanding the Chair. The Chair has just pointed out that there has been an allegation that an Assemblyman has been prevented from coming into the House. The law says that anybody who does that is guilty of an offence. That person can be arrested and then prosecuted in court under a sanction of the State Advocate-General. In so far as the motion is concerned, it asks the House to condemn such conduct and asks the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law. That is all. Mr Rajaratnam, in reply?

Sir, I do not propose to spend a great deal of words over this, except to say that this motion is being passed purely because, as has been indicated, Sir, since the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance has not come into force, we are left helpless. But let us not use the word "helpless", because we have not been helpless. The fact that we are able to bring a motion like this and have it debated has had a salutary effect. We have been able to deal with the situation without having to call in the police. All Members of this House have indicated plainly and categorically that any group of individuals, whether today or in the future, who attempt to prevent any Assemblyman, whether on this side of the House or on that side of the House, from coming here to discharge his duties would not only meet with the condemnation of Members of the House but any action taken to enforce the will of this House would have the approval of the Members of this House. That is the point of this motion, and it is on that basis that we have brought it forward and have persisted in asking the House to declare its stand on this motion. Question put, "That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance". Some hon. Members: Division. The House divided and the Clerk proceeded to call out the names of hon. Members - Upon the name of Mr Chan Sun Wing (who was absent) being called -

Absconded!

Order. There must not be any interjection during a division, especially a division of this nature. The voting was as follows:- Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Lingam S. V. Haji Jumat. Ng Teng Kian. Ahmad Jabri bin Ong Eng Guan. Mohammad Akib. Bani, S. T. Absent. Buang bin Ahmad bin Omar Junid. Ibrahim. Byrne, K. M. Chan Sun Wing. Chan Chee Seng. Sahorah binte Chan Choy Siong, Ahmat, Madam. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Chor Yeok Eng. Toh Chin Chye. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Kandasamy, G. Koh C. H. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Siew Choh. Lee Teck Him. Leong Keng Seng. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Lin You Eng. Low Por Tuck. Mammen, John. Marshall, David. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Thio Chan Bee. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

There are 43 Ayes; 3 Noes; 5 Absent. Motion as amended accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

I propose to suspend now until a quarter past six. I will take the Chair again at a quarter past six. Order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.44 p.m. until 6.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 6.15 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Order. Item 2 on the Order Paper, debate on the amendment as shown in that item. Dr Thio.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid most of us have forgotten what I said before the interruption. So, Sir, forgive me if I try to bring the threads together. I was saying, Sir, that in the eyes of historians and constitutional experts, the term "genuine merger" or "complete merger" is not really applicable to the Malayan situation. Use it loosely if we must, but we have to say it clearly that in a loose sense, the word "merger" applies to practically any form of political union. Because of the Government's mistake in not clarifying the term, the Barisan Sosialis Member for Queenstown has followed up that mis take by arguing in favour of a genuine merger as against a phoney merger. I am afraid the public outside are being misled because of that. It is important to realise that what we are considering for Malaya are various forms of partial merger, and these forms are known to historians as Federal unions. Federal unions are of roughly two kinds. One kind is that of a federation, sometimes tighter than others, sometimes less tight. Another form is the confederation type. In between, there again may be slight variations. Each one, Sir, has its own special characteristics. For the sake of analogy, to enable some people to understand better the difference between these two types, let us say that a federation is like a hand with the fingers linked together to the main body by means of the palm and the arm. Now, the States in the Federation have some liberties, Sir, but they cannot move round and round like the arm. They are restricted in their movements. They are States in a federation. They are one in a sense, but the emphasis here is on all the powers being given to the Central Government except for certain specified ones given to the States. In the case of a confederation type of partial merger, Sir, Singapore is like the whole arm. It gives to the Central Government only certain specified powers like external affairs, defence and security; then all the rest are given to Singapore. It is a very loose type of federal union, generally known as a confederation. Where the people are not ready to be closely tied together because of differences of language, customs and religious beliefs, they usually start by going on to the first stage, the confederation type of federal union. When they have learnt to trust one another better, then they go on to the second stage, the federation type of federal union. When they have really sunk all differences and have become completely malayanised so that they can think together as one without reservation, without any fears and any suspicions then they go on to the last and ultimate stage, that of genuine merger as exemplified in Great Britain and in the Union of South Africa. But to press for a genuine merger right away when we have not yet sorted out our differences may give rise to a situation, as in South Africa, where the coloured races feel that they are being discriminated against. Sir, the Swiss confederation began as far back as 1291. That was the first federal pact known in modern history - 1291 - centuries before they learned to trust one another enough until final ly, round about 1848, they formed their federal republic, the same type of federal union as we see in the Federation, with slight variations. The American States also went through the same stages. On 15th November, 1777, 13 States signed the Articles of Confederation. Their purpose was for a firm league of friendship with one another for common defence, security of their liberties, and their mutual and genuine welfare. Sir, if Singapore wishes to link up with the Federation in a tight federation but if the Malays are unprepared to accept Singapore on that basis, then, of course, our - I am using the term roughly now - merger plans will never advance one inch. But because the American States began with a confederation, 10 years later, Sir, having developed sufficient trust in one another, and having become convinced of the greater strength to be produced in a tight federation, they then formed the United States of America on a federal basis. Sir, we in the Alliance believe that although we all aim for genuine merger as the ultimate type, in order to ensure success, we have to do it by stages. If necessary, we should go for the first stage, the confederation stage; then after five years, review the position, and go for the federation type; then after that, when the people are all ready, we can have a genuine merger type of union. Sir, another important point to remember is that political unions are like different suits of clothes of different sizes. They fit different people at people at different times according to their different ages. One cannot say that this suit is complete and, therefore, it is good that suit is incomplete, and, therefore, it is bad. On that basis, Sir, I suppose, because I wear a complete suit, therefore, I am in a better position than those who wear incomplete suits. They find themselves more comfortable, perhaps, to be in incomplete suits. The Barisan Sosialis friends may find it more comfortable to be in incomplete suits -

In bikini!

I would not want to say, Sir, that their type of clothes is inferior to mine. They just like those clothes, so there they are. If people like an incomplete type of merger today, well, that is the best way to make them happy. Why insist, Sir, that they should wear one type of clothes? I would not want to insist that every Member of this House should wear a suit like yours, Sir, with due respect to -

Order. If the hon Member is drawing analogies, he should try and draw his analogies as against extraneous matters, because I can assured him I am feeling a bit hot in my wig!

Sir, I am trying to bring out this point, that the issue that a complete merger is therefore superior to an incomplete merger is a wrong issue. At the seaside, people find it better to be in scanty clothes. Here they prefer to have warmer clothes. In the same way, Sir, in Singapore with so much independence of spirit shown by youngsters, they may prefer greater freedom. They may want a looser form of merger than that in the Federation. Therefore, the confederation type of federal union would suit them well, where only certain specified powers are reserved to the Central Government and all residual powers are given to the State of Singapore. Sir, I suggest we reconsider whether or not a form of political union is suitable for us on the following basis. We should ask ourselves whether this form of political union is suitable, workable and acceptable to the contracting countries. If it is suitable to only one or two and not to the rest, acceptable only to one and not to the other, Sir, then we do not have the basis for agreement. Therefore, merger negotiations, again using the term roughly, would fail. Se condly, we should ask ourselves whether the type of political union we are pressing for makes for greater or less racial harmony and happiness. Thirdly, is it mutually beneficial? And fourthly, does it help to promote greater economic prosperity and, therefore, greater chances of employment for our people? Sir, considered on this basis, the Barisan Sosialis suggestion that a citizen ,of Singapore should have transferability of votes - they say they have the right to transfer themselves over the Causeway to vote or to stand for election - would frighten the Malays in the Federation. If I were a Malay, I would appreciate it better. I ask my fellow Members who are not Malays to look at it from the view-point of the Malays, to be fair. It is like saying we want to have a confederation with more liberty for the State, yet we want the right for one arm to go over and be merged with the other arm. Two arms to become one arm. If you want a choice, you have to choose one or the other. You want more liberty, then there is the confederation. You want less liberty for the State, then that is the federation status. Viewed, however, from the Chinese side in Singapore, the Barisan Sosialis type of partial merger is wonderful. We want everything. We want freedom and we want the right to have a majority. If we are indifferent to the feelings of the Malays, then we will say, yes, that is the type of partial merger we want. But I am sure, having lived in Malaya so long, we are appreciative of the fears and resentments of our Malay friends and brethren. If we are trying to develop a new nation, we should be fair-minded and not arouse unnecessarily in them more fears and suspicions. If we do that, then the confederation type is the best for everybody. I have said, Sir, that after 5 years we can review the position. Supposing we say that the Barisan Sosialis insists and we all vote for the Barisan Sosialis amendment that there must be automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federation citizen nationals, and not only that, but we also must have the right to go over to the Federation and vote and stand for election, then we know the answer. It will be no. We may like it in Singapore, but from the Federation side the answer will be no. That being so, we are then forced to go back to the status quo. Here, Sir, there are two groups of people who might favour the status quo. The Barisan Sosialis have said that they are willing to have self-government with the Internal Security Council removed. But, Sir, we can see the dangers here. If the internal Security Council is removed, we might become an East Berlin where there will be even less freedom than now. On the other hand, I think there are a small number of people who are dreaming of the time when the British will scrap the Constitution and they will go back to the colonial status. If they want that, I think they are dreamers. They cannot turn the clock back. In order to awaken them from their sleep, I would like to recount an incident which took place in Kuala Lumpur some six or seven years back when Sir General Templer - a man who should know British policy - said (this is a paraphrase), "Even if some people may want us to stay here longer, events may take place outside this country and in the United Kingdom which will compel us to hand over the government to you people. So for goodness sake, organise yourselves as quickly as possible to take over the government." Sir, when an officer of that calibre gives advice to the local people to organise themselves as quickly as possible and be ready to take over the government, then I plead with those who are still sleeping that they must not stand on the side-lines and allow the country to be taken over by extremists. They must assume their responsibilities and make sure that democracy is a success. Sir, today we stand at a very important point on the road towards nationhood. The past has a lesson for us so that we can build a better future. In 1946-48, many of us remember that there was a great deal of communal tension in Singapore and the Federation. There was a hartal. The Malays were organising themselves to resist. People were keyed up for a big fight. I am glad to say that a spirit of goodwill and understanding came to ten top Malay leaders and ten top Chinese leaders, and they met at Johore Bahru to discuss the problem. The Malays said, "We have political power but you have economic power. If you help us to rise economically, we must naturally share with you our economic power because the Chinese and Malays, being the largest communities, must live together har moniously like brothers or we shall never have peace and harmony in this country." In that spirit, I am glad to say, they were able to turn the course of history. Now people say that Malaya is an example of racial harmony. Today, Sir, on this merger issue, we face another cross-road. I appeal to the leaders of the various communities in Singapore, the Federation and even Malaysia, to have the same spirit of goodwill and understanding and, in that spirit, seek to find the best form of poli tical union which will enable us to come closer and closer together until we become a united nation. Sir, this takes time. Some want to rush into a united nation at once by forcing their own brand of merger, but I ask them to consider that if we force the Malays to accept a political union on those terms, it might mean failure; whereas if we are understanding and are prepared to move forward, first on the basis of a confederation, and then reconsider the position after five years to go into a tight federation, we shall be able to reach the goal which the Barisan Sosialis want but do not quite comprehend - the goal of genuine merger. 6.36 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last few days, Members of the Opposition, especially those in the Barisan Sosialis, have made lengthy speeches on the question of genuine merger. They have talked a great deal on the amendment of the Member for Queenstown in the hope of dealing the Government a blow. As a matter of fact, we have seen in the last few days that it is impossible for a fox to hide its own tail. It may be able to do so for the time being, but its appearance -

On a point of order. Is the hon. Member referring to Members of the Opposition as animals?

If the interpretation is correct - I am sure it is correct - then she is alleging that some Members are foxes hiding their tails. I have always discouraged likening Members to any type of animal.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the case, I will use another form of expression. They are trying to make use of the clothes of other people to cover themselves. But in any case, however hard they try to cover themselves up, they will be shown for what they are. The moving of the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis clearly shows what it amount to. They pretend to be sincere in learning the Bible, but all the time they are pretending to learn it. So this is only a very lame excuse. If the Barisan Sosialis have no intention whatsoever of reflecting the desire of the people in the Federation and Singapore, then how can they think of such things as a genuine merger and their amendment to the motion? If a person does not want to do good deeds, what is the point of asking a priest to pray for him? This behaviour of the Barisan Sosialis is significant. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I heard the Member for Choa Chu Kang say - this is reported in today's Nanyang Siang Pau - that since the inception of the Barisan Sosialis, it has not changed its stand on merger of Singapore with the Federation and that its stand will remain the same in future. But if it only wants to express its stand, then I think it is totally unreliable. We can see from the speeches of Members of the Barisan Sosialis that their stand on merger is changing all the time. They can change like the Monkey God which can change itself into several shapes. In a statement reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 30th August, they said that their stand on merger of Singapore with the Federation was that they must have a true merger immediately so that Singapore can go into the Federation as a State like Penang or Malacca. However, on 2nd September, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis - the Member for Queenstown - was reported in the same newspaper to have said in reply to certain statements made in this House that he reiterated the stand of the Barisan Sosialis for a self-governing State of Singapore. He said that the abolition of the Internal Security Council should be achieved by 1963 so that Singapore will be an internally self-governing State. From this kind of statement -

On a point of order. The hon. Lady is reading from a document. Would she mind quoting the other paragraphs as well, Sir? She is only quoting a portion of it and it distorts the whole view.

If there is a paragraph in the cutting of the newspaper which contains the quotation, then the whole paragraph should be read, so that the quotation will not be out of context.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is necessary, I do not mind reading the paragraph. But I feel that what he said in this particular paragraph is contrary to what has been said previously. He said that the Barisan Sosialis may consider the confederation proposal, including the Borneo territories, but it must be one in which there must be full internal selfgovernment. Therefore, as I said just now, if the stand of the Party is what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said, then that stand is unreliable. And if what he has said is only his personal view, then that is even more unreliable. 6.47 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Why do I say so? It is this: I remember the time when he was in the P.A.P. He obviously agreed to the ob jectives and stand of the P.A.P. And because he agreed to such objectives, he joined us in our struggle. But how does it come about that he has now parted from us? Well, mainly it is because he wants a stand that is different from that of the P.A.P. For this reason, he has crossed the Floor to join the Barisan Sosialis opposite. Now that he is in the Barisan Sosialis, he is not sure whether the Barisan Sosialis has a clear stand. And if this stand is not agreeable to him, I wonder whether he will do anything about it. Talking about the question of merger, which is a reflection of the desire of the people of Singapore and the Federation, we must say that the reunification of these two territories is inevitable because geographically, culturally, and economically, Singapore has all along been a part of the Federation, and the reunification of these two territories is therefore inevitable. Since 1946 all anti-colonial people and true nationalists have shouted this slogan of reunification, and the P.A.P. has been one of them. Even as early as 1954 the P.A.P. put forward its own objectives, that is, to end the rule of the colonialists in order to bring about a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. All along, the ideology and spirit of the P.A.P. has never deviated from such objectives. All along we have been struggling honestly and decidedly according to our stand, i.e. to lead the people forward in the achievement of a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. And it is because of this correct stand of ours that we have been able to get the support of the various classes of people. However, the Barisan Socialis Members opposite say that the question of merger today is a sort of trick played by the P.A.P. in the past few months in order to save its precarious position in power. They say that since the P.A.P. has assumed power, there has been little or no talk at all about this matter. As a matter of fact, in our policy speech as reported in a booklet published in 1960 by the Editorial Board of the P.A.P., we said this-regarding the constitutional talks with the British on merger between the Federation and Singapore, "We must reiterate the stand of the P.A.P. We are standing firm on our stand. If we do not have sufficient force or strength and ability to carry out our policy and get the support of the people, then we shall fail." In this booklet, there is yet another paragraph which touches on this. Some people think that Singapore can become an independent State by itself. There is another proposal - we must start talks on co-operation between Singapore and the Federation. Are we to achieve independence through talks with the Federation, or are we to have talks with the British to get independence for Singapore itself? In 1957 when our Secretary-General stood for the by-election in Tanjong Pagar, there was controversy in this matter. At that time the question was whether it was practical for Singapore to get independence. Or whether it was proper for Singapore to get independence through merger with the Federation, which meant a greater unity, viz, from a merger between Singapore and the Federation, Singapore could get its independence. And because this question was brought up during the by-election in Tanjong Pagar, our representative was returned. So it would be incorrect to say that we never talked about the question of merger in the past few years. As a matter of fact, merger is one of the objectives of the P.A.P. Mr Deputy Speaker, the propaganda line of the Barisan Sosialis is not well defined. They cannot, on the one hand, disregard the clean record of the P.A.P. over a period of some seven years, and on the other hand, accuse us of being unreasonable in trying to sell out the people. As a matter of fact, I say that those who say this are themselves unreasonable. They tried in the past to overthrow the P.A.P. Government. The situation actually became clear during the Anson by-election. At that time the so-called six trade union leaders in Singapore published a statement against the objectives of the P.A.P. that is, that we should have a truly full internal self-governing State of Singapore by 1963. And before the by-election, our Deputy Prime Minister reiterated the objectives of the P.A.P.'s struggle, namely, to go through with merger with the Federation and to achieve a fully independent Singapore. On the 13th June, the six trade union leaders of the P.A.P. issued a statement in which they repeated their desire to have a full internal self-governing State of Singapore. Four of Column: 954. these six trade unionists are now in the Central Executive Committee of the Barisan Sosialis. Subsequently, unfortunate events took place within the P.A.P. Eight Members who broke away from the P.A.P. published a statement in the papers saying that they endorsed the proposals brought up by the six trade unions leaders, i.e. to have a truly full self-governing State of Singapore by 1963 through constitutional talks.

(In Mandarin): On a point of order.

Point of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask what paper is the Member holding and where she has got it?

If the hon. Member wants to quote anything from a newspaper, she must, of course, inform the House which newspaper and what day.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is fortunate that what I am saying now is not written by my back-seat driver,, otherwise I would have been at a loss. I was just trying to tell this House that I was quoting from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 14th of July. They maintained their stand that they had broken away from the P.A.P. At that time they thought that by overthrowing the P.A.P. itself and the Government they could continue on their path to sell the Government to prevent the coming into being of merger. They thought that by doing this they could still maintain the open front of the Communists and their influence in Singapore. This ambition of theirs has failed badly. Therefore, they are now sitting opposite us and are travelling in a different way. The Barisan Sosialis Members sitting in this House have, by delivering lengthy speeches in these few days, become the puppets of the Communists. Formerly, when we were happily together within the Party, I had occasion to know or to hear that the Member for Queenstown said certain things to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. He said that it did not matter if we could make use of the co-operation between the Communists and ourselves as long as the British did not lose their base in Singapore. He also said that they did not mind being mouth-pieces. But this is a sort of gamble. I believe that of the gambles in which they have been involved, this one is the most precarious and dangerous. If at that time we had followed the suggestion of the Member for Queenstown and had made use of the co-operation of the Communists and received instructions from them to achieve the abolition of the Internal Security Council by 1963 so as to have a fully self-governing Singapore, then I believe today we would still have been quite happy together sitting on the same side of the House. Then they would not have left the P.A.P. But we did not want to do what they had suggested. We felt that if we were to do what they had suggested, we would only weaken the relationship between Singa pore and the Federation. Can they say that we are not complying with the desire of the people? The people want a merger of Singapore with the Federation. But not the Communists. The main reason for this is that they want Singapore to be out of the control of the Federation so that they can make use of Singapore to liberate the Federation. But we must try to achieve a merger of Singapore with the Federation so that it will come as early as possible in order to solve our economic problems. This will be conducive to the interests of the people. This stand of ours is just the opposite of their stand. Since we have different objectives, we must part -company. On our side, we must continue to do our work and achieve merger. The Communists may go ahead with their struggle for a fully self-governing State. We wish them well. In any case, how can they say that we are unreasonable? Well, it is very simple. In the past, because we all wanted to achieve a common objective, namely, to defeat British colonialism, they came to our side to co-operate with us. But now this artificial separation is coming to an ,end very soon. [The English translation not being forthcoming.]

I think there is something wrong with the microphone of the Chinese interpreter.

(In Mandarin): The Communists want to have self-government. So as a result of such differences we have to part company. This is only natural. Is it because we do not want to allow them to go their own way to sour the relationship between Singapore and the Federation? Can they say we are unreasonable in not allowing them to do things their own way? We can tell them now that, for the sake of achieving the reunification of Singapore and the Federation we are prepared to face any attack. The second method of the Barisan Sosialis is this. They say that by trying to bring about merger we are trying to sell out the people of Singapore. I want to ask them this. In what way is the P.A.P. selling out Singapore, and to whom? Is the P.A.P. selling out Singapore to the British, or to the Japanese, or to the Americans? They are really more naive than a child. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me quote again in this House the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is the present Member for Upper Serangoon. At one time he was reported in the Nanyang Siang Pau of 13th July to have said this. This statement was made after the Anson by-election. He said that during the by-election, people were talking a great deal about the Malaysia and merger plans. I want to remind Members of this House that the Prime Minister had said this at a street corner meeting, i.e., that this question was to be decided finally by the people themselves because it was not a matter for only a few Ministers. The statement of the Prime Minister is still in the papers. Since the Prime Minister has already said such a thing, why should Members of the Barisan Sosialis come to this House and shout that the P.A.P. is selling out the people of Singapore? They come here every day and start shouting. The people in Singapore and the Federation are after all in the same family. They will come together again. We are now trying to bring Singapore back to the bosom of the Federation. I feel that it is but natural and reasonable. I say that it is also in conformity with the geographical and historial conditions of these two territories. After all, the people of Singapore are part and parcel of the Federation people. The merger arrangement is just like the handling over of the domestic chores of a younger brother to an elder brother. I do not see anything wrong in that. So how can they say that we are selling out Singapore? Perhaps their accusations have come about purely because the Federation Government is a Right-wing Government and maybe it is because of this they say that we are trying to sell out the people of Singapore to the Tunku. Well, can we say that the Tunku's Government is not representative of the Federation people? The Barisan Sosialis' logic is very unreasonable and irrational. They even talked contradictorily on their own amendment. As the Leader of the House, the Deputy Prime Minister, has said, and rightly so, the amendment brought forward by the Barisan Sosialis is just like kicking somebody in the back and then shaking hands with him, and asking him, "Well, are you all right?" They do not want to clarify the true situation before they make their accusations which cannot be substantiated by facts. If there is actually a sell out, then the people's interests in Singapore would have been injured or damaged; but according to our merger proposals, the interests of the people of Singapore will not be damaged in any way at all. The people of Singapore will not only retain their citizenship, but will also obtain nationality in the new Federation. And on questions such as labour, education, social welfare and the entrepot status of Singapore, they will still be what they are, that is to say, these subjects will still remain in the hands of the Singapore Government. The only difference is this. We are now carrying British passports. In future, British passports will turn into Federation of Malaya passports. These rights cannot be had in the other States in the Federation of Malaya. In the past few days, the Member for Hong Lim opposite, when making his speech on merger, did not have the guts to deny that we are going to have special rights. In this case, he was at least a little more frank than the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan Sosialis, on the one hand, advocate genuine merger, but on the other hand, are afraid of internal security being handed over to the Federation Government. Therefore, their amendment about the so-called genuine merger and the automatic conversion of citizenship is nothing but a smokescreen and a camouflage. Their method is just like the Cow King in Chinese mythology who was trying to stop the Monkey God from climbing over a certain mountain. They have done so many for the interests of a few people in the Barisan Sosialis. Their act cannot cover their attempt and intention to prevent a merger of Singapore with the Federation. Because of this, I come forward to oppose strongly the amendment. 7.27 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I go to the question proper, I would crave your indulgence to express my personal feelings on the -

rose -

Is it a point of order?

Is the Member allowed to give her impressions of what has happened in the past few days, instead of going direct to the point?

It is not a point of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the tabling of this motion by the Minister for Labour, there have been certain unfortunate events in Singapore. I do not know whether it is unfortunate to the Government or to the Speaker. Well -

Order. I think the hon. Member should speak a little slowly so that the interpreters will be able to translate.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel that the most unfortunate part is the dangerous situation into which he himself has landed. This can be written as a sort of adventure story - Mr Lee Khoon Choy rose -

Is it a point of order?

Yes. Is all this relevant to the amendment?

Of course, the Chair will make a ruling whether it is relevant to the amendment or not.

(In Mandarin): Since our Parliamentary Secretary is so very nervous about it, I had better leave it alone.

I think the Member is speaking too fast and too loud. Will she please speak slowly so that the interpreter will be able to do the interpretation?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the amendment tabled by the Member for Queenstown, who is the Chairman of our Party. I feel that this amendment of ours is meant to strengthen and enhance the spirit of the original motion. It is not intended to sabotage the principle of the original motion. We can see this very clearly. From our amendment and the speeches made by Members of the Barisan Sosialis, we clearly show our sincere desire for a reunification of our countries. We have given many examples to explain the difference between a true merger and a phoney merger. We have spoken sincerely on parliamentary democracy, but the Ministers in the Government accuse us of talking empty words. Whenever Members of the Barisan Sosialis criticise them for their faults, we see from their expressions that they are very worried. They try to cover their personal feelings by laughing. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Ministers accuse us of having made empty talk.

Order. I think the hon. Member should bear in mind that she must speak on the amendment and not on the Minister. Will she confine herself to the amendment?

(In Mandarin): These remarks of mine are relevant to the amendment because in the last few days we have talked a great deal on this question, but the Ministers say that we are indulging in empty talk. I am saying that this is not true. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, they cannot take the advice given by us. I can liken their behaviour to this story. There is a musician playing to a cow but it cannot appreciate the music.

Where is the cow?

The hon. Member knows that there is no cow in this Assembly and she must not imply that any Member of this Assembly is a cow.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not pinpointing anybody as a cow. I am just telling a story. The Ministers in the Government do not heed our advice. We cannot force them to do so.

What advice?

(In Mandarin): If they cannot take heed of what we say, it does not matter. But we can repeat what we have said to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the people out side.

Order. I think the hon. Member should bear in mind that she is addressing the Chair and not the Members on the opposite side.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Government are truly representative of the people and want to listen sincerely to the people, they must have heard about what the people are talking in the streets, lanes and coffee-shops. If they have not heard about what is spoken, I can tell them now. I have other things to tell them. They do not have to worry about it.

Order. I have already ruled that the hon. Member should not address Members on the opposite side. She should address the Chair.

(In Mandarin): I think you are unfair. These people are talking about something, but you do not stop them.

If the hon. Member is indulging in an argument with the Chair, then I think I will have to use the Standing Order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me tell them now in this House that the people are saying that the P.A.P. is coming to an end.

Goodbye!

(In Mandarin): The people are saying that the P.A.P. Government is proposing a phoney merger or a sell-out merger. The people are also saying [Interruption] - well, do you want to listen to this? The people are also saying that the Barisan Sosialis Members are very right in what they say, especially on the citizenship question. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a factual reflection. I am not lying in this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very surprised because all of a sudden the P.A.P. seems to be interested in merger. But the P.A.P. is actually interested in a phoney merger and not a true merger. They do not support our amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all the people in Malaya and Singapore have a common but tragic history. The British colonialists are to be blamed for the artificial separation between Singapore and the Federation, otherwise there would not have been this need now for a reunification of the two territories. The aim of all patriots is to break down this artificial barrier, because the reunification of the two territories will bring about greater democratic rights to the people and prosperity to the country. Therefore, we hope that our territories will come together again as soon as possible. Since we have made a beginning on merger, we must sit round the table and talk about it amongst ourselves. This Government should not go and talk about it with somebody else and then come to this House to tell us that we must accept their merger proposals. It was because of this that we have moved an amendment to the motion. Our amendment is just like a ship with a compass sailing to a true merger so that we will not be misled and lose our way. In this way, some 600,000 people of Singapore will not be brought to the edge of a cliff. This is one of the reasons for the amendment to the motion. Another reason is that we have completely lost our confidence in the P.A.P. Government. Since the Government came into power, it has done many things to the disappointment of the people. We cannot entrust the question of merger and the livelihood of the people of Singapore in the hands of the P.A.P. Government alone. We want the P.A.P. Government to give a clear explanation to us and to the people of Singapore so that we can then have a chance to decide for ourselves, otherwise the Government has no right to represent the people of Singapore on the question of merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I feel that our amendment is just like a mirror which can reflect the reactionary appearance of the Government. By means of this mirror, we can really tell who is interested in a true merger and who is interested in a phoney merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope the Government will not try to play up communal feelings, because communal feelings, hatred and conflicts are very unfortunate and tragic. This will do nobody any good, either to the country or to the people. If the P.A.P. resort to such dangerous means in order to save their political career, then I advise them not to do it. I hope the P.A.P. Government will think carefully before they disregard my advice. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope out friends in U.M.N.O. know the true situation so that we can still maintain our friendship with them. As the Member for Anson has said, we have not made any personal attack on the Tunku. We do not have any communal discrimination. All along we have been living together. So let us be calm. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to refute a statement made by the Member for Cairnhill. He said that the amendment is redundant and repetitive. I feel it is not redundant at all. I say it is very appropriate. It can be likened to this. When you go to a cold country, you must bring more clothes with you to keep yourself warm so that you will not be frozen. This can also be likened to people who have to put on glasses. The second point is this. The Member for Cairnhill has said that some people are afraid of internal security falling into the hands of the Federation Government. I will say that he is not correct. If we have true merger, we are prepared to accept that. The Member for Cairnhill seems to be on the side of the Government by defending them on a false premise. So I must quote the Member for Cairnhill - this is reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 23rd November this year. The Member for Cairnhill, talking about some people's fear of internal security falling into the Federation Government's hands, is reported to have said that the Federation Government, after merger, might take action on behalf of the P.A.P. Govern ment. He says that this will not happen because at present the Internal Security Council has a representative of the Federation who does not interfere with or instruct the Singapore Government to do this or to do that. This has been the position for the past two years, and therefore, we should not fear. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us say that this is true. Therefore, if we have no claim to make, then there should not be any opposition. If a child is good and well behaved, there is no need to punish him. But the fact does not seem to be like this. Very often we hear the Government claiming that the Internal Security Council has given the Government a lot of trouble, particularly in respect of the release of political detainees. The Government say they have tried to argue this question in the Internal Security Council, but in vain. I do not know what is the actual voting which makes their attempt fail. The assurance of the Member for Cairnhill seems to have come from nowhere because he is not a member of the Internal Security Council. So I am just wondering how he got this information. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me talk about the speech of the Minister for Culture. He is a man with the "Ah Q" spirit. From his speech, we can see that these words prey on his mind, "The First Prime Minister of Malaysia". He is trying to distort the fact that the people should have more democratic rights. He tries to say that Members of the Barisan Sosialis use this right of the people to gain more constituencies. He disregards the problem that comes with the increase in constituencies, i.e., the people must have more democratic rights after merger so that they will be able to move freely in the eleven States in the Federation. Now, let me quote the Minister for Culture. He said, "It is only when people in the Federation have more favourable terms than the people of Singapore that this term "second-class citizenship" can be established. That is to say, people in the Federation can come and stand for election in Singapore, but those in Singapore cannot go there and stand for election, i.e. to enjoy the same rights, and it is only when such a position has come about that this term "second-class citizenship" can be said to be true and correct. There is equality only when the people can enjoy common rights." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from this part of his speech, we can say that the term "second-class citizenship" is true; because in a reunification, the people must be able to enjoy equal rights. But how is it that after merger, the people of Singapore are confined only to the small island of Singapore and the people in the Federation are confined to their own territory in Malaya? If that is the case, how could you have merger, and where is the reunification? I must point out in particular that after merger Singapore citizens can enjoy civic rights within the State of Singapore only, but the people in the Federation can enjoy civic rights in all the eleven States. So it is very correct for us to say that after merger Singapore citizens are second-class citizens. Can we ask the Minister for Culture with the "Ah Q" spirit to explain -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of elucidation. Miss Fung Yin Ching resumed her seat.

Is she saying that I have the "I. Q. spirit" or the "Ah Q spirit?"

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me again quote the Minister for Culture.

Ah Q.

(In Mandarin): Yes. This is what the Minister for Culture said in his speech which was reported in the Sin Chew fit Poh of 22nd November: 'I feel that this claim for automatic con version of citizenship is a sabotage. These people who seem to be interested in merger are actually afraid of merger. They have left the P.A.P. not because of the merger question only.' Can we say that this claim of automatic conversion of citizenship is not the basic right which should be given to the people of Singapore after merger? If the people should be denied such a fundamental right, then how can you call this a merger? All this talk of sabotaging merger when actually we are trying to damage the phoney merger of the P.A.P. As to their saying that we left the P.A.P. is not purely because of the question of merger, we say in reply that it is true, because at the time we left the P.A.P., there was no such controversy as one of true merger or phoney merger. This question of merger was then not conspicuous or clear. We left the P.A.P. because there was no internal democracy, and the leadership of the P.A.P. could not accept the views, of their members. After they have taken office, they do things at their own will -

Order. I think I have reminded hon. Members that the debate is on the amendment and not on the reason why the Barisan Sosialis left the P.A.P. and so on. So will the hon. Member please confine the debate to the subject of the motion?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this was touched upon by the Minister for Culture during his speech. So I must offer some explanation. At that time we were dissatisfied with the P.A.P. and so we left it. We left the P.A.P. for this reason and not because of the merger question. Now, let me quote the Minister for Culture again for the third time. This is a report in the Sin Chew fit Poh of 24th November, in which the Minister is reported to have said this: 'If the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are really interested in having a merger, then they must unconditionally leave their objective for abolishing -'

Order. Moment of interruption.

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