I am grateful for his clarification, Sir. But to many people who are not as conversant in the Malay language as the Member for Geylang Serai, the words "parang" and "axes" mean something much more than metaphorical. Perhaps, Sir, it is just unfortunate. I quite understand, Sir, that perhaps the Member for Geylang Serai was carried away by his emotion. But I wish to assure him, and I am sure he will agree with me in this, that an emotional display will do no one any good. Sir, I wish to say just this one bit to Members of U.M.N.O. We will never resort to the use of violence to solve the problems of our people. We shall only use reasoning, understanding, tolerance, peaceful and constitutional means to achieve our objectives. This is because we have full confidence in these methods. Mr Speaker, Sir, one would have expected from the P.A.P. Ministers some new points in their arguments as to why merger with Singapore entering as the twelfth State is unacceptable to them. They have opposed our amendment, but kept signally silent as to the reasons for their opposition. Instead, they have replayed the same old P.A.P. propaganda tune. Thus, the Minister for Culture, in his rambling address, has confined himself only to a rehashing of the usual P.A.P. trash, and this too, Sir, far less convincingly than in the past. He has tried to show in a very roundabout and tedious way that the Barisan Sosialis is not sincere in its call for merger as the twelfth State of the Federation of Malaya, and that we are in fact, anti-merger. I fail completely to understand how he has arrived at this conclusion. Even the statements he has quoted do not lend support to his contention. I will deal with the statements a little later. But I am sure many of us here are just as bewildered at the word "logic". Probably, Sir, his consultation in occult sciences and astrology must have aided him m no small way to arrive at what he wants us to believe in. Sir, when desperate politicians reach this stage, they are well past the border line between sanity and insanity. He has stated, Sir, that the key to the understanding of the stand taken by the Barisan Sosialis lies in the fact that we broke away from the P.A.P., not over the question of merger but because we wanted to push forward the constitutional anti-colonial struggle; because we wanted to abolish the Internal Security Council and wrest from our colonial masters the right of self-determination. This, Sir, is a correct observation. The crisis in the P.A.P. was not over merger, but over the departure of the P.A.P. leadership from the proclaimed socialist aims and objectives of the Party. The P.A.P. leadership was not willing to strive for more freedom. In political jargon, Sir, the P.A.P. leadership moved further and further to the Right, and thus further and further away from its socialist aims and promises before it came into office. This soon became indistinguishable from the actions of a Right-wing Government. Permit, Sir, to quote the Tunku - a very shrewd man according to our Prime Minister - to illustrate my point. On the 16th October in the Federal Parliament, on the merger debate, he was reported thus in the Straits Times of 17th October: 'Singapore, after the elections of 1959 tried to set up what we might call an extreme Socialist Government under the P.A.P. When they assumed office they tried to put to trial Socialist ideas and at the same time attempted to secure an understanding with the Federation Government.' A few paragraphs later, Sir: 'They found it difficult to run the island without the cooperation of men in commerce and industry, and also without being on the best of terms with the Federation Government. The responsible leaders then realised that they owed a duty to the people to serve their interests rather than themselves, so the seeds of difference between the non-Communist and pro-Communist elements in the P.A.P. were sown which today have broken into a complete break. Therefore, the Prime Minister of Singapore felt rather concerned and approached me with some of his problems and difficulties. We made a careful study of the situation and came to the conclusion that the only salvation for Singapore would be in some form of closer economic and constitutional association with the Federation.' Sir, in other words, the Tunku states that the leadership of the P.A.P., since assuming office in May 1959, have forsaken their socialist policies. They have, in the eyes of the Tunku, who prides himself on being a Right-wing leader, changed from "an extreme Socialist Government" to "responsible leaders.". We all know what the Tunku means when he says "responsible leaders". The hon. the Member for Cairnhill was also once referred to as a responsible leader. Sir, the Minister for Culture quoted some of our Party statements and tried to draw ridiculous inferences from the stand our Party has taken on the constitutional future of Singapore. He tried to ridicule our Party stand by saying that we, after advancing two alternatives, namely, complete merger and confederation, concluded that Singapore should therefore have only internal self-government. Sir, allow me to quote in full once again the statements of my Party on the constitutional future of Singapore, so that there will be no distortion of our stand. They are only brief quotations, Sir. The Minister for Culture, I believe, also used the same documents to quote. Sir this is the Declaration of Meetings of the Conveners of the Barisan Sosialis. I quote item 5: 'Our stand on the constitutional future. The Barisan Sosialis stand for a united Malayan State comprising the territories now known as Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Unification of the Federation and Singapore is inevitable and we are glad that there is some universal recognition of this fact. At the same time, we note that thoughts on a united Malayan State are being tied up with the concept of Malaysia, i.e. including the Borneo territories. The way ahead therefore for a real reunification of our people and our country is in one of two directions: (a) An immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining Federation as a constituent State like Penang or Malacca. (b) As an autonomous unit within a confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible. We recognise the serious disabilities, that the socialist movement will have to put up with by an immediate and full merger. Our socialist comrades in the Federation have been struggling to remove the various oppressive laws and put an end to the various oppressive measures directed against us. We shall join them and intensify the struggle against these laws and measures. In the meantime, we are prepared to accept as a stage to eventual merger a constitutional arrangement for a confederation within which Singapore will be an antonomous unit with full autonomy in internal matters, including internal security, and conceding by treaty the fields of external affairs and defence to the Federation Government. Such an arrangement will not only mean quite substantial advances for the people of Singapore hut it will also bring an end to colonial rule in Singapore. Whatever the direction-' This is an important paragraph, Sir, from which the Minister for Culture used to draw wrong inferences. 'Whatever the direction we choose to take, it is imperative that the anti-colonial struggle must be intensified. We must abolish the Internal Security Council and wrest the right of self-determination from the colonial power by 1963.' And, Sir, in the statement issued by the Barisan Sosialis on the constitutional advance and the reunification of the two territories on the 27th October, 1961, we said this: 'We wish to emphasise once again that merger must remain our important objective. If merger is possible forthwith, then we are prepared to convince the people of Singapore to accept this opportunity to achieve national unity. In view of the fact that the Tunku has stated categorically that the merger we ask for cannot be attained in the immediate future, we must consider alternatives of constitutional advance. As a step forward to eventual merger, we will agree to some form of relationship with the Federation of Malaya based on full autonomy for Singapore, including internal security.' This is in the absence of full and complete merger. Further: 'The constitutional struggle of our people must, however, not remain stagnant whilst we wait for some form of satisfactory relationship with the Federation. While our people settle their problems to unite themselves, we must not forget, that the main factor that divides our territories and our peoples is the existence of the colonial power. The imperialist policy of divide and rule needs no explanation. The fight against colonialism in whatever form is not only antagonistic to the unity of our peoples, but is an essential complement. While we forge ahead the tempo of uniting our peoples, it is important that we proceed all out to eradicate colonialism in Singapore. Therefore, if no satisfactory relationship can be established with the Federation of Malaya in the immediate future, we must strive for full and genuine self-government in 1963.' Sir, I had to read this throughout because I wanted to make sure that there is no distortion of our stand at least in the future. Sir, you will have noticed from these quotations that we believe it is only when either merger or confederation is impossible that we will persist in fighting for more democratic rights and political freedom for our people, and that the minimum demand we should put up in the next constitutional talks in London in 1963 is complete self-government for the people of Singapore. It is clear from our statements that if at any time complete merger or confederation is possible, then we will gladly grab this opportunity to have closer relationship with the Federation based on equality and democracy. But we cannot agree if the proposition put forward is like the P.A.P.'s phoney merger. We cannot agree with the P.A.P. that in the absence of any form of satisfactory unification with the Federation, Singapore should remain politically stagnant. We have stated clearly that the struggle for more democratic rights and political freedom for the people of Singapore does not in any way contradict our struggle for genuine unification between Singapore and the Federation. We have stated that since it was the colonial power which divided our people and our country, any struggle that will reduce colonial influence in our country will logically reduce the main factor that divides our people and our country. That seems to be the logical and sensible way for anyone who sincerely wants a genuine unification of our people. We cannot agree with P.A.P. that the continuance of colonialism in Singapore will in any way contribute to the unity of our people. The Minister for Culture speaks of complete self-government in Singapore as though it is something fearful and frightening, as though it is something that would divide Singapore further away from the Federation. Sir, let me suggest to the Minister for Culture that he should read what his master, the Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said on internal self-government in Singapore in 1955. I have only a brief quotation to make from Hansard, Vol. 1, col. 21, of 26th April, 1955. 'We believe, Sir, that this country is fit now for full self-government-'. Sir, that was in l955 - six years ago. And six years ago, our Prime Minister believed that Singapore then should have full self-government straightaway. But now six years later, his colleague, the Minister for Culture, is telling us that we in Singapore should not have full self-government because that will divide Singapore further away from the Federation. What utter rubbish! Who is doing the double talk? who is doing the double thinking? Who is saying one thing at one time and another thing at another time? The Prime Minister later, on 4th April, 1956, said, in Hansard, Vol. 1, col. 1794 words which are now being contradicted by the Minister for Culture. I shall quote these words, Sir, but I want to say first that when the Prime Minister was speaking then, he was speaking on a motion moved by the then Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, to instruct the All-Party Delegation to the constitutional talks in London "to seek forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce." In other words, Sir, this motion called on the delegation to seek an independent State of Singapore having control over all its internal affairs, including internal security, but with external defence in the control of the U.K. Government who shall also give guidance in foreign relations. Our Prime Minister said this in col. 1794: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that my Freedom is a matter for argument and that I must justify why I must be free.' These are admirable words, Sir, but our Prime Minister continued further. We quote him in the fourth paragraph of col. 1794: 'Freedom is the birthright of all peoples everywhere in this world. Because my forefathers migrated for purely selfish economic reasons to what they call the South Seas, a whole generation of some two million Chinese are today left in Malaya with Malaya as their only home and, necessarily thereby, the sole object of their loyalty.' Yet today, Sir, our Prime Minister wants us to think that getting some form of political integration with the Federation at all costs, even at the cost of selling away our equal citizenship status, is something justifiable. He refuses to consider any form of constitutional advancement whatsoever out of the context of merger. Our Prime Minister begins all of sudden to think that any constitutional advance for Singapore towards reducing colonial influence in Singapore will lead to a further division of Singapore from the Federation. Why this sudden change of attitude? Or was he advocating this attitude in 1956 merely because he then had the support of the people but now, having lost the support of the people, he has abandoned it because he knows that without the Federation Government support, he will not have a hope of political survival? Incidentally, Sir, I must congratulate the Minister for Finance on his observation that the Barisan Sosialis is roughly in a similar position as the P.A.P. was in .1959. Sir, why does the Minister not draw the obvious conclusion that the P.A.P. of 1961 is different from the P.A.P. of 1959? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen its bad effects even though the power is not absolute. We have seen, in the history of the socialist movement, renegades like the MacDonalds and the Stracheys who fall by the wayside. What the socialist movement discards, the P.A.P. embraces with glee. Sir, may God spare us the fate of the angry young men of the '50s who, in a short space of 2� years in office, have not only lost their youth but their anger. The Tunku has, in addition, shown one point and that is that it was, only after - I repeat, Sir, only after - our Prime Minister had run into difficulties within his own Party, because of his refusal to rectify his mistakes, that is after Hong Lim, and the demand by five other trade unionists and myself, that he prostrated himself before the Tunku, -begged the Tunku's help and cooked up this present deal which he has the temerity to call merger. Again, at the time of the Hong Lim by-election when I, in common with five other trade unionists, made the call to the P.A.P. leadership to rectify its ways, to release the political detainees and strive for the abolition of the Internal Security Council by 1963, to proceed with the unification of the trade union movement, and to restore the citizenship rights deprived from the anti-colonial fighters. Merger, Sir, was not then an immediate issue. We were not anti merger. Merger was not the issue which broke the back of the P.A.P. Sir, we all had, and still do, subscribed to the view of independence through merger. But we are not slick lawyers nor are we confidence tricksters. We accept the words "merger" and "independence" at their face value. We did fail, Sir, to foresee that men driven mad by power and desperation could even attempt to tear meanings out of words. Sir, we are wiser today. Sir, merger was later on slipped in by the P.A.P. leadership to cover up their departure from the socialist aims of the P.A.P. and to hide the betrayal of the trust the people of Singapore had bestowed upon them in 1959. The P.A.P. leaders sought to depict by this maneuver those who had demanded for internal self-government by 1963 as being anti merger. To us, Sir, the anti-colonial struggle is a complementary phase in the struggle for national unity and reunification. The separation of our countries, as the Minister for Labour has said, is due to colonial machinations. We cannot thus accept the perpetuation of colonialism in Singapore as conducive to the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. Sir, we are serious students of politics. When we know the root cause of our troubles, we shall seek its removal. We do not go in for symptomatic treatment. There is no conflict in our call for the intensification of the anti-colonial struggle and our stand on merger. Our call for the intensification of the anti-colonial struggle and the abolition of the Internal Security Council can in no way imply that we are anti merger. It is utterly dishonest and mischievous to equate this call for greater freedom as indicating that we are afraid of merger. Sir, the Minister for Culture quoted the letter written by Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, which was published on 24th June, 1961, in the Straits Times. This did not in any way show that we are anti merger. But he used this to try and draw inferences that the meaning contained therein amounted to our being anti merger. Sir, I do not have a copy of the letter. I am quoting from the speech made by the Minister for Culture which has the quotation of the relevant part of the letter he quoted. Since this has been admitted, I suppose it will be in order for me to use this. This is the part that he quoted: 'Merger we have hitherto come to understand was a thing of the distant future. However, recent statements by leaders of the Federation hold out an earlier promise of the union of the two territories. Encouraging as it is, the question now arises, on what terms will this be effected?' Sir, I will repeat the last sentence: 'Encouraging as it is, the question now arises, on what terms will this be effected? But I think the Government in the Federation and the Left-wing Government in Singapore apply certain conflicting policies. This is recognised in the statement by Dr Toh, the P.A.P. Chairman, that whatever the constitutional position of the future we must have control over labour and education. This is exactly our concern. We have stated that any constitutional arrangement must not mean a setback for the people in terms of freedom and democracy.' This is the quotation, Sir. How can any sane person say that this quotation shows that the Barisan -Sosialis is not sincere in wanting merger for Singapore as the twelfth State? Let me repeat, Sir: all that Mr Lim Chin Siong said was, "Encouraging as it is, the question now arises, on what terms will this be effected" Mr Speaker, Sir, the salient facts therefore, are: 1. We supported the idea of merger. 2. We were ignorant of the details of proposed merger, like all the people of Singapore, and 3. We stated the principles on which any constitutional arrangement should be based. Thus, Sir, on 28th August in our policy statement and again in our Declaration of the Meeting of Convenors of the Barisan Sosialis - both of which I have read out - the very same declaration which the Minister for Culture has so ably read out to this House, we have maintained the same consistent stand. We confine ourselves to an analysis of the political situation to a statement of principles and to pointing out in bold relief the directions heading for our constitutional advance. We call, as our first priority, for the complete merger of Singapore as the twelfth State despite the fact that the details of the so-called negotiations were not made available to us and in the face of the Tunku's apparent somersault from an attitude of riot wanting merger to his publicly stated desire for merger. Sir, the Minister for Culture wanted to know when it was that we decided to call the P.A.P. deal a sell-out and a phoney merger. Let me state again, Sir: we were not against merger at that time; we are not against merger today, and we have never been against merger. I challenge the P.A.P. Government to quote from tiny of our statements that we are against merger. Sir, to call the P.A.P. deal a sellout and a phoney merger does not in any way show or imply that we are against merger. The P.A.P. deal is not merger, and we have said so. It is not only a perversion of the meaning of merger, but it can also be better described as tipu orang merger - in the words, I believe, of the Member for Anson. Sir, when did we call the P.A.P. deal a sell-out? When did we describe the P. A. P, citizenship arrangement agreed to by the P.A.P. Government as making Singapore citizens second-class citizens in the new Federation of Malaya? Sir, we called the P.A.P. deal a sell-out as soon as sufficient details were revealed in this act of striptease politics. Now, Sir, we have exposed the deal naked for all to see. Who would not be aggrieved when he realises that the P.A.P. is parading a prostitute as a virgin? Sir, we have been described as the "angry young men." We are proud to be the angry young men of this generation. We are young in age. Sir, but not in experience. We are glad that we are not old and senile as the P.A.P. leadership. We are angry Sir, and justly so. What man in his right senses would not be angry today at the way things are done and especially, Sir, at the treachery of the P.A.P. Government?