Hansard, 1961-12-01

The following Question stood in the name of Mr David Marshall:- 1. To ask the Prime Minister what is the title of the Singapore Government to the land and installations involved in the Scudai River scheme.

Order. There is one question in the name of the Member for Anson. He does not appear to be here. I take it the Minister responsible will be submitting a written reply in due course.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Yong, ministerial statement?

Mr Speaker. Sir, I am pleased to report to Members of this House that today, the last day of the first Government Secondary IV Examination in the Chinese medium, the highest number of candidates which sat for the examination so far was registered, namely, 1,958 out of a total of 3,169 candidates, of whom 2,956 were candidates from Chinese secondary schools and 213 were candidates from the Adult Education Board, that is, the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa. This figure represents 62 per cent of the candidates taking the examination despite determined and concerted efforts by political agitators to boycott the examination through picketing and other methods of intimidation. I wish to pay the highest tribute - and so will all Members of this House and the people of Singapore who stand for law and order and for sanity - to the thousands of students and their parents who refused to be cowed by intimidation. I wish also to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to all presiding officials, invigilators, principals, teachers and staff of schools, and the staff and officials of my Ministry for their unflinching loyalty in the cause of national education in the Chinese medium in the face of great provocation and intimidation that went on for the past five days. In view of the stress and strain to which candidates have been subjected as a result of the picketing of examination centres by those agitators who organised the boycotting of this examination, the marking of examination scripts will certainly take into consideration the psychological handicaps and the unfavourable conditions under which candidates answered the examination papers. Whenever necessary, the school records of candidates will also he taken into account. A supplementary examination in all subjects will be conducted next week, as announced yesterday, for all candidate who were prevented from sitting for any of the papers in the regular examination conducted this week. Candidates are, however, advised not to sit for papers next week for which they have already sat. Details of the supplementary examination are as follows:- Centre 1 - Teachers' Training College, Paterson Road; Centre 2 - Tanglin Boys' School } Off Tanglin Road, } behind the Ministry of Education, Centre 3 - Tanglin Girls' School } Kay Siang Road. The time-table will follow the same order as the regular examination: Monday, 4th December, 1961: 9 to 11.30 a.m. - Chinese Language 12.30 to 2.30 p.m. - Chemistry Tuesday, 5th December, 1961: 9 to 11 a.m. - Elementary Mathematics 12 noon to 2.30 p.m. - Art (Still Life) Wednesday, 6th December, 1961: 9 to 11 a.m. - Chinese Literature 12 noon to 2 p.m. - History 3 to 5 p.m. - Biology Thursday, 7th December, 1961: 9 to 11 a.m. - Additional mathematics 12 noon to 2 p.m. - Geography 3 to 5 p.m. - National Language Friday, 8th December, 1961: 9 to 11.30 a.m. - English 12.30 - 2.30 p.m. - Physics 3 to 5 p.m. - General Science The Government Senior Middle III Examination, will be held as scheduled at 44 centres from Friday, 8th December, to Thursday, 14th December. There is no change in time-table or examination centres. As the Teachers' Training College will now be used as a centre for the supplementary examination of the Government Chinese Secondary IV Examination from 4th to 8th December, the T.T.C. Professional Part 1, Part II (all language media) and T.U.O.S. (Trained under other schemes) (all-years) examinations scheduled to be held from the week commencing Monday, 4th December, will have to be postponed for one week to Monday, 11th December, 1961. The detailed time-table arrangements from day to day will remain unchanged. Mr Speaker, Sir, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment for the four language streams of education in Singapore, I am pleased to announce that those who pass the Government Secondary IV examination, in Chinese, will be eligible to apply for 100 bursaries, which will be tenable for two years in Upper Secondary classes, valued at $420 per annum. The award of bursaries will, as usual, be based on academic merit and financial need. This. Sir, is similar to the 100 bursaries now available to students in the English secondary schools who passed the Cambridge School Certificate Examination and are attending two years of upper secondary classes prior to taking the Cambridge Higher School Certificate Examination. It may be pertinent to ask, Mr Speaker, Sir, why this boycott has failed and why the evil men who tried to use misguided students as cover for their sinister and dangerous political operations have been reduced to a state of impotent frustration. The first reason is that the Government, in tackling this delicate issue, steadfastly refused to fall into the pro-Communist trap of hitting out at the misguided and excited student picketers in order to get at the manipulators who hid behind the students and who in their cowardly way used the bodies of school children as their shield. The second reason is that the stand of the Government on this issue was a just and sensible one. That being so, public opinion was on the side of the Government's stand which was that no one was compelled to take this examination. It is quite clear from what happened during the past one week that the vast majority of students wanted to take this examination. Despite intimidation by politically manipulated student picketers, more than half of the students braved the pickets to take the examination. If there had been no intimidation by hostile and unruly picketers, there is no doubt that the attendance would have been higher. This is shown by today's attendance. As the dispirited picketers melted away, more students turned up for the examination. The third reason why this boycott failed is that students and parents on their own initiative decided that they were not going to be cowed by the picketers and their cowardly leaders. Gone are the days when students and parents could be intimidated in this fashion. The moment students and parents decided to stand up to the picketers and to exercise their rights, the so-called boycott collapsed like a house of cards. This should be a good lesson to the pro-Communist conspirators that the days are gone when they could intimidate the people and bamboozle students and parents with false slogans. The past week's events have shown clearly that there is no real foundation for the myth that Chinese schools are centres of unrest and indiscipline. Last week's events have proved that the vast majority of Chinese school students, like students in other language streams, are not only basically law-abiding and responsible, but will not hesitate to stand up bravely for what is right and fair, in standing up to the picketers, they were asserting their rights as students to take an examination which would not only equip them educationally but also enable them as educated citizens to contribute to the welfare and progress of our country. In today's Free Press there is a picture, Sir, of parents and supporters standing outside the Ministry of Education to protect students, who wish to sit for the examination, from the picketers. You will see, Sir, that unlike the picketers there are no handkerchiefs tied around their faces to hide their faces. This is because they have nothing to be ashamed of. There was no reason for these people to hide their faces from the people. But not so the picketers. They all had to hide behind handkerchiefs. They dared not reveal their true faces. The students who sat for the examination and who forced their way through booing and sometimes violent pickets are the kind of Malayans and citizens on whom we base our hopes for a peaceful, prosperous and happy Malaya. Contrast them with the misguided students who were tricked into picketing instead of taking the examination. They have wasted a year of study. They have got nothing out of the picketing and their leaders will not be able to make good this loss. These leaders will abandon these misguided students and seek fresh stooges and reckless adventures elsewhere.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek clarification on one point? May I ask the Minister the reason for the hurry in holding the supplementary examination on Monday, and whether it will not be better to hold it when conditions are more normal and tempers have subsided?

I think, Sir, it is necessary to carry on because the people have shown that they have fight in them and they can therefore proceed next week because the other Government Senior Middle III Examination will take place in any case from Friday. So whether there is tension or not, examinations will go on. The agitators behind this must realise that they are fighting not just the Government but the students, the parents and all the people of Singapore. And if they still continue to do so, it will be at their peril.

2.48 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 of Merger Day".' -(Dr Lee Siew Choh). Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 2.50 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I gave a resume of the pre-war history and the post-war political developments of our fatherland. I also related briefly how the Communists and pro-Communists in Malaya manipulated, manoeuvred and posed themselves as true Malayan nationalists. Mr Speaker, Sir, at that time, the Malayan nationalist fighters were quite prepared to struggle in close co-operation with them so long as they did not infringe or transgress upon national interests. With reference to the amendment of the Member for Queenstown, I said yesterday that it has at least four veiled motives. It is evident that party interests and party ideology take first place, with the Communist back-room boys giving instructions. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis and other political Parties having an identical political ideology are sincere in wanting a full and complete merger, why have the words "complete merger" not been inserted without the necessity to accentuate citizenship? In other words, a complete merger means the acceptance without qualification of the present policies of the Federation of Malaya on citizenship, education, labour, language and other matters. But this is not what they asked for. Their contention is that the rights and interests of the people of the Federation are our rights, but, that the rights and interests of the people of Singapore cannot be interfered with by the Federation. Surely, this is not the spirit of give and take, and it is unjust. Even small children understand this kind of arithmetical calculation. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Thomson - he is not here at the moment - posed at least 16 questions which he himself answered. The questions posed were why the people of Singapore could not get this and that and whether the Nanyang University diplomas will be recognised by the Federation of Malaya. All those questions are just like asking rights from the Federation of Malaya. This means that we are prepared to take but not to give. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a married man and my wife is my wife, of course; but if the wife of another person becomes my wife, this is not fair. If the Barisan Sosialis and other political Parties which share the views of the Barisan Sosialis are really sincere and responsible in their desire for merger, they must openly declare their acceptance of the present Federation Constitution - chapter and verse. They must also be prepared to give an undertaking to this Assembly and to all the people of Singapore that their stand is acceptable and that the people will be behind them, otherwise they should not try and hide behind a smokescreen or attempt to fish in troubled waters or try to poke at a hornet's nest. Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the points raised by the Member for Queenstown in support of his amendment have already been adequately dealt with by my colleagues, but all the same I wish to add a little here and there to give it a finishing touch, just like adding a little more spice to the gravy to make it more appetising. I will be brief, of course, and do not intend to beat the record of the speech of the Member for Queenstown. Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown was in a rage when he attempted to convince the House that he and his Party alone were the real saviours of Singapore. Let us look at the accusations that he hurled against the nationalist fighters, independence through merger, the tabling of the White Paper, and the motion under debate. He said that Singapore has been sold, that the Tunku wants Singapore but not her people and that when British colonialism goes out of the front door, another form of colonialism will enter from the back door. He equated Singapore to the position of a mistress, its people as second-class citizens, and many other hackneyed phrases such as those uttered by a prostitute to her lover or to the man who keeps her. Mr Speaker, Sir, to the linguist, it is evident that the language of the Member for Queenstown is, according to an old Malay adage, "As the tree, so the fruit." Language reflects the mind. Your demeanour reflects your character. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, everything is clear to us. The evidence is as clear as daylight. Mr Speaker, Sir, the basis of unity and solidarity of a nation is the devotion and undivided loyalty of its citizens to the State. The absence of these factors will result in the destruction of the State. "When a house is on fire, the rats run helter skelter," - so goes another Malay saying. Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore, undivided loyalty is one of the absolute prerequisites for a strong and united nation and State. Only by sacrifices can we prove our sincerity and loyalty to the State. Take an easy example - for the benefit of Members who claim themselves to be representatives of the Barisan Sosialis - the Russian Communist Party. Yuri Gagarin, the first cosmonaut, was accepted as a fully-fledged member of the Russian Communist Party only after his perilous performance of orbiting round the earth. This was a sacrifice. Mr Speaker, when I say that the basis of unity and strength of a nation rests on the undivided loyalty of the citizens, it does not imply that I am accusing the people of Singapore, whether in this House or outside, that they are disloyal to the State. That is not my intention at all, Mr Speaker. I was listening attentively to the greater part of the speeches made by the Opposition Members, particularly from the group of 13 who style themselves the Barisan Sosialis, and who have all the time been emphasising on automatic citizenship. I believe, Mr Speaker, that there is no one in this Assembly who will not agree to automatic citizenship if the Federation Government is willing to accept this. The Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, rejected this demand, as contained in his communication dated 13th November, 1961, to the Singapore Prime Minister, and circulated to all Members. The decision of the Tunku, according to his letter rejecting this demand, clearly reflects the view of the people of the Federation of Malaya. This view is based on the Federation Constitution, although Article 22 of the Constitution states that Parliament can decide and determine the rights of the people of a new State on joining the Federation. But can this demand he acceptable to the Members of Parliament in the Federation? The views of the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, represent the stand of his Government and the Alliance Party, which is now in power. If this motion were moved in Parliament, I am sure the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party would rise in strong opposition. There may be a handful of men who will support the demand of the Barisan Sosialis in Singapore - people like Mr D. R. Seenivasagam, Mr Lim Kean Siew, and a few other puppets, representing only a small minority in the Parliament. In facing a national issue that involves a multi-racial society like Singapore, we must attempt to resolve it in a spirit of sincerity and compromise which will riot adversely affect the interests of any particular section in the community. In order to prove and demonstrate our loyalty to the State, we should be prepared to make sacrifices. There is no struggle that does not call for sacrifice. We must study the historical background of our fatherland, and we should accordingly be guided in our struggle to achieve national objectives. Mr Speaker, we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by sentiments, because this will be detrimental to our national unity, which has been developed by our nationalist heroes who have sacrificed their all and who have undergone repressive and oppressive treatment in the past. Mr Speaker, no struggle will be achieved in one day, just as Rome was not built in a day. Therefore, we, as leaders of a nation, fighters of the State, must have cool minds and seek all avenues of approach in order to resolve our difficulties. In this way we can demonstrate to the people that we are citizens with an undivided loyalty to the State and thereby convince our brothers in the Federation that we are truly their brethren of the same nation and enjoying the same fate. To true Malayan nationalists or to the self-proclaimed leaders, this should be the first task which they must discharge. To be overcome by political sentiments and party ideologies in order to win the support of the people will not solve our national problems. Therefore, Mr Speaker, to those who allege that Singapore has been sold to the Federation, or that Singapore will he colonised by Malaya, or that Singapore will become another Manchuria, I say categorically and in all frankness that such people are insincere and that they do not regard Malaya as the object of their sole and undivided loyalty. I wish to repeat this, Mr Speaker - such people are insincere and they do not regard Malaya as the object of their sole and undivided loyalty. My charge is justified, Mr Speaker, for we are all agreed unanimously that Malaya and Singapore are one, that is to say, one country. We are in the process of building a united Malayan nation. Therefore, those who regard themselves as aliens or regard Singapore as an alien country clearly consider themselves un-Malayans. It is impossible for a nation to colonise its own people. The people in Malaya are all our brothers, of the same kind and enjoying the same fate. The same can he said for those who refuse to acknowledge Singapore as being a part of the Federation of Malaya. If Formosa reverts to the mainland of China, does it mean that the Republic of China is colonising Formosa or Taiwan? It is a different case if the Americans go to Formosa or Taiwan. But if Formosa reverts to Communist China, to me it is not a form of colonisation. If they really contend that Singapore forms part of the Federation of Malaya and that we belong to the same nation and are known as the people of Malaya, then there is nothing to fear. I feel the debate in this Assembly would have taken the form of a more sincere and sober note, and such diatribes as "to colonise", "sell-out", "Manchurian incident", or what have you, would not have been uttered in this Assembly by people with any sense of decency at all towards their brothers in the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, of course, we can discuss our rights and our grievances. Or we can even ask for complete merger and so on. This is in the true spirit of democratic practice. But to indulge in such vituperation will certainly result in explosive consequences detrimental to our efforts to bring about unity to our people, and to create a united Malayan nation in our multi-racial society. Mr Speaker, I sincerely exhort and appeal from the bottom of my heart to all those who have found themselves astray at the end of the road to go back to the start so that they may not get completely lost altogether. The allegation that the Singapore Prime Minister has succeeded in persuading and convincing the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya with frightening stories is, I believe, tantamount to ridiculing a Government which was elected by the people. It is also an insult to the people of Malaya, who have elected their Prime Minister, that their Prime Minister can easily be influenced by the Prime Minister of Singapore. I am saying this in the interest of unity of both the peoples of the two territories. There are people who say that this merger proposal was not written in the P.A.P. Five-Year Plan and so why must merger be accelerated? Does it mean that we shall have to wait? May I ask; until Mr D. R. Seenivasagam, or Mr Lim Kean Siew, or even the stooges, or even the Malayan Communist Party, hold the reins of the Federation government, who can achieve merger before us? Answer yourself. Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the challenge that general elections should be held both in Singapore and in the Federation, I feel that as regards Singapore the challenge has already been answered but I will further answer it later on. With regard to the Federation, let the people of the Federation themselves give the answer. It is hardly becoming of us if we in Singapore, as one of the twelve States of the Federation, were to demand our brothers in the other eleven States to obey our beckoning. This is yet another instance of the Barisan's own vileness. The Member for Queenstown has posed this question: "Has our Prime Minister carried the fight for an equality of status for the people of Singapore into the Federation Parliament?" I feel this question is like the nightmare of a person who is sleeping during the day. We are not as yet merged with the Federation. We have no representatives in the Federation Parliament to voice our demands. Tarry a while until the time when we can send our representatives to the Federal Parliament when merger has taken place. In the meantime, I wonder whether the Barisan Sosialis already have their representatives or agents in the Federation Parliament, in the persons of Mr Lim Kean Siew and Mr D. R. Seenivasagam, to put forward their demands. That I would not like to say. Mr Speaker, with regard to "merger", several Members of the Assembly have given various definitions. There are those who say that merger is like a marriage. But there are different kinds of marriages. I am not a doctor of matrimony, Mr Speaker, Sir, and perhaps that is why I find it somewhat perplexings to grasp this analogy. If the analogy of matrimony is advanced, I say surely you would not expect to beget yourself a child on the morrow of your wedding day. Unless, of course, there are other ways of begetting legal children! I am not a doctor like the Member for Nee Soon. For me, Mr Speaker, I would draw the analogy of a big river with twelve minor tributaries. Eleven of these tributaries have been freed of obstruction and have joined the main river. But one of these tributaries has had a harrier placed at its confluence, so that its water is not free to flow out into the main river. When the harrier at the confluence is removed, the water will be able to flow freely to join the main river. However, upon so doing, the water from the tributary will not automatically change its characteristic. That is to say, its taste, its colour, and so on, will not be identical with those of the water in the main river. It is only after it has undergone several phases of the tide that its identity will be completely merged with that of the rest, in the fullest sense of the word. Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is anyone whose thinking is confused and whose stand is wavering and uncertain, that person is the Member for Cairnhill. There was a time when he would thump his chest and proudly exclaim that only his Party could bring about merger with the Federation of Malaya. But now the hollowness of his words are only too obvious. Nevertheless, the Member for Cairnhill has other excuses to put forward to explain why he cannot concede that the basic agreements as contained in the White Paper do, in fact, constitute merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, he merely depends on the newspapers. But he did not take into consideration the paper-work that has been going on. We have not forgotten yet, Mr Speaker, that the Secretary-General of the S.P.A., Mr Lim Choon Mong, who was also probably an adviser to the Member for Cairnhill, and sometime ago that only the S.P.A. could succeed in bringing about merger.

Order. I wonder how all this is relevant to the amendment. All that the hon. Member is saying is, probably the Member for Cairnhill and his Party failed to obtain merger. Where is the relevance to the amendment?

(In Malay): I feel, Mr Speaker, that we are now on the question of merger, and I am replying to the arguments that have been put forward by the Member for Cairnhill, who is a representative of his Party in the Assembly. Therefore, I was touching on his stand and that of his Party on the question of merger which we are now debating in this Assembly. But, Mr Speaker, what can the Member for Cairnhill say now? He can only say, "If the S.P.A. were in power, we too would be able to achieve what is contained in the White Paper, or even more." As the Malay saying has it. "When the house is completed, the chisel is heard. When the matter is settled, you put in your word." Mr Speaker, I do not wish to speak a great deal about the Member for Cairnhill. It appears to me that the demeanour of the Member for Anson is no different. Intentionally or unintentionally, he has been defending his clients from the Barisan Sosialis who, according to him, are in a pitiable state as the Barisan Sosialis have no legal adviser in this House. But the Member for Anson is forgetting that they have many advisers waiting outside this Assembly. According to the Member for Anson, the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown is to make the definition of "merger" more complete. What is surprising is this. Why should citizenship alone complete the definition of merger? Why not say, "Full merger", which by itself embraces the question of citizenship, education, language, culture, internal security, etc.? Mr Speaker, Sir, what is even more surprising is that he and his own Party have not yet decided on a clear stand on the question of merger. In his speech last Thursday, he showed his considerable skill at staking his bets. His habit is to have a stake on all sides so that he will not be a loser. If there are four digits, he will lay his stake on all the four digits so that whichever way it goes, he will not be the loser. So also is his strategem in politics. He wants merger with the Federation. He also desires independence for Singapore. He welcomes full internal self-government. He also welcomes an international status for Singapore with the State being placed under the protection of the United Nations. Indeed, he will even countenance Singapore deteriorating into another Congo. In his speech last week, he showed his true form once again. He said, "Curse the Communists!" He also said, "Beware of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, who are pro-Communists, and beware of their intelligentsia. Then he went on to say. "Tunku Abdul Rahman is a foremost statesman, sincere and honest." But he did not admit to having played up the theme of Communism. "Support the special rights of the Malays." he said. In the same breath, he said, "Cursed be those who say only the Chinese are Communists." Thus, where does he stand, Mr Speaker? He is here, and he is there, so that he is loaded with stands which are all calculated to be to his good. This is the demeanour and disposition of a Member who brings a hammer into this House. Whom does he want to scare and hammer, Mr Speaker?

Order. I do not think the Member for Anson has ever brought a hammer into this House. I would object to that.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, he may not be bringing a hammer, but he brings the symbol of a hammer. Mr Speaker, Sir, the time has come. Before us now lies the national issue to be decided by us. We wish to see every Member of the Assembly declaring his stand - whether he is with the nationalists or otherwise. Mr Speaker, it was queer to note the Member for Nee Soon assuming the mannerism of a professor when he analysed the P.A.P. souvenir booklet - "The Tasks Ahead." He made himself out to be a truly genuine socialist after having read only a few pamphlets and booklets. Unfortunately, he is not here. He analysed the P.A.P. struggle in the manner of Khrushchev analysing the struggle of Stalin and those of other major leaders of Communist Russia. He then came to the conclusion that the policy carried out by Stalin, Molotov, Malinkov and others have all deviated from the true Communist policies. Thus it was with the Member for Nee Soon when he analysed the P.A.P. struggle. Because he could not undertake the responsibility of collective leadership, he came to the conclusion that the P.A.P. has deviated from its true socialist stand. This is the same deviationist attitude of the Communists. For our part, Mr Speaker, Sir, we who have gone through political stress and strain understand full well the techniques of people of the Member for Nee Soon's ilk. In order to uphold their precarious stand, they accuse others of having deviated. Believe you me, Mr Speaker, their seeming strength which is that of ice will not endure. It will of itself melt away without the necessity of anyone else breaking it up into pieces. I say, pray do not indulge in chest-thumping as is often done by Members of the Barisan Sosialis who say that their leaders, especially the people who are outside this Assembly, are ready for sacrifices and will continue to make sacrifices and are not afraid of imprisonment and so forth. We too are so, Mr Speaker. Do they think we are cowards! History will yet judge it. This is the attitude of the people who could not ride us as their hobby-horse, say things which are untoward and unbecoming -

The hon. Member, I see, has the habit of fishing for more bait from his seat. May I remind him of the announcement I read? It was rather lengthy, but I will read the last sentence again. It says: 'I invite Honourable Members to adopt the course suggested, that is, to say, to subject themselves to self-discipline and so to see that their speeches are not unnecessarily lengthy and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.' I would suggest that the speech made up till now is unnecessarily lengthy.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length so as to break the record now held by the Member for Queenstown, hut I am merely replying to some of the criticisms and challenges brought out by Members on the opposite side. Mr Speaker, when the hon. Member for Nee Soon stated in this House that merger would hinder the spread and development of socialism because the merger proposals are sullied with politics, I felt surprised. We are elected from political Parties. Surely the results achieved whether in respect of national development or of merger are all political achievements. If you plant a durian tree, the fruit you expect to gather will surely be durians. Similarly, you cannot expect a goat to give birth to a duckling -

Possibly all these metaphors and similes are making the hon. Member's speech lengthy.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make short ones. With regard to merger hindering the spread and development of socialism, we can clearly see now why the Member for Nee Soon is afraid of merger. I say without hesitation that this merely shows the Member's lack of knowledge of politics. I do not know if by socialism he means Communism. The people of Malaya previously were not very alive to socialism even though there were several aspects of it practised during their life-time. Even so, socialism has not made very rapid progress then. Mr Speaker, socialism will continue to spread whether during the colonial regime or after Malaya has become independent and Singapore has achieved self-government. The spread of socialism will go on relentlessly like the tide which no obstruction can hinder. It is only novices in politics who are unaware of this reality. We in the P.A.P., even after the achievement of merger, will resolutely remain a socialist Party - a socialist, democratic, non-Communist Party - and will forever adhere to this ideology. So long as the struggle is on constitutional lines there need be no fear whatsoever. In Malaya itself there are labour Parties claiming to adhere to socialism. The Party Rakyat with their proletarian ideology. We cannot see wherein lies the obstacle to the spread and development of socialism that is feared by the Member for Nee Soon. Perhaps if the struggle is to be carried out outside this Assembly on Communist lines, that is another matter. Now, the Member for Nee Soon drew attention to chauvinism. What did he say'? He said in Singapore there was no longer any chauvinism. As an instance, he said Malay Members in the Government, including myself, were returned with large majorities by Chinese voters. I do acknowledge that, and I am convinced that in the future, whoever stands for election, the result will be the same. But why did the Member for Nec Soon bring up this matter here in this House? Is there some hidden motive behind it, or is he now attempting, as it were, to throw a brick and then hide his hand behind him? To bring up matters of this nature is like imputing that it was we who had brought about chauvinism and who were not grateful to the voters who had returned us. We would like to reiterate that we always appreciate the stand taken by the voters. Our stand is clear. Communalism is the enemy and the main obstacles in our efforts to bring about a united Malayan nation. Therefore, I say those who carry out the policy of communalism are indeed the enemies of every true Malayan nationalist in this young State of ours. We realise, and we are firmly convinced, that only a Party which is non-communal in outlook will be able to succeed in the efforts to save the State and bring about a united Malayan nation. The P.A.P. is a socialist, democratic and non-Communist Party fighting towards that objective. We were elected to the Assembly on the P.A.P. ticket, and the people in our constituencies have placed their faith in the P.A.P. as a socialist Party which is non-communal. We stand resolutely on that firm policy. Mr Speaker, only waverers and saboteurs and cowards will undertake to run away from their very important responsibilities. They merely make utterances in the Assembly, and with typical bovine docility they serve a purpose like that of the proverbial cow which gets a name for the milk produced by the buffalo. This is the attitude of people who thump their chests in this Assembly like the blind man who has lost his stick. Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to Members of the Barisan Sosialis, especially the Member for Thomson who is not here, and who always says that the Government in the Federation at the moment is a Right-wing Government and its education policy is misguided, and that the P.A.P., as a Left-wing political Party, has gone on bended knees to this Government, implying that the P.A.P. has deviated to the Right, I feel this shows the true colours of these people. This shows the shallowness of these people in political know-how. He and his comrades are unable to distinguish between national and ideological matters. The merger of these two territories is a national matter. The State is like an enterprise, whilst the political ideology is an instrument of policy by which that enterprise organises and administers its affairs. Even after merger has been effected, the P.A.P.'s stand will resolutely be non-Communist, socialist and democratic. There is not a single Party in the world which can accept fully the policy of another political Party or another government whose policy is diametrically opposed to its own ideology. We say that Communist China, Russia and Albania all have different policies. So to bring about a change in the policy of a State would naturally take a long time until the people of this State are prepared to accept the change in the policy and ideology of the Party. We are living in a State practising parliamentary democracy. For instance. Party A may be holding the reigns of government. The next day, it may be Party B or possibly the Barisan Sosialis. Take Kerala for instance. After the Communist Party had formed the Government, in the following general election the people of Kerala resisted and rejected the Communist ideology and elected instead the Congress Party to form the new government. This is the practical reality of parliamentary democracy. If the Government is Right-wing now, this should not be the reason why merger should not take place. Merger should not be -

I hope the hon. Member is not getting angry with the Speaker. I suggest that if he looks at the Speaker, then possibly he will not lose his temper.

(In Malay): I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Queenstown pointed at me likewise the other day. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should realise that one man's meat is another man's poison. Ours is not the kind of democracy that is bragged about by Communist countries where the lives of the people are solely in the hands of the Communist Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, the rise and fall of any government is left in the hands of the people. The people give us the mandate and they alone can take it away from us. So let the Member for Thomson and other hon. Members in the Barisan Sosialis realise this: set yourself aright first before you start to put other people aright; do not be a stooge and allow yourself to be used as an instrument or a tool by irresponsible elements who do not have the interest of the State at heart. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the sake of bringing about the realisation of a united Malayan nation, in all sincerity and earnestness, once again I say to them - and appeal to them - "If you find that you have strayed from the right path into the wilderness, do retrace your steps and come back to the highway." We in this House are some of the drivers on that journey. A good driver is one who drives his car with care, and in heading towards his destination he is alert to the environment along the way, always keeping a wary glance to the right, left, front and the rear so that the safety of the car and of its passengers is ensured. Therefore, let us face the national issue with true inspiration and a genuine spirit of Malayan nationalism. Perchance we will be able to discharge our responsibilities to the utmost in the interest of the security of the State and of the unity of the nation. In conclusion - although I have more to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I will heed your advice; I do not wish to break the record of the Member for Queenstown - I challenge each and every Member of this Assembly to declare his stand on the national issue that is very clearly and plainly before us. The national issue waits to be resolved by the decision of every Malayan nationalist. On which side of the line do you stand? Are you on the side of the true Malayan nationalists, or on the side of the anti-Malayan nationalists?

Am I right in saying that the hon. Member is using the words "Barisan Sosialis" or just "you"?

(In Malay): Nationalists and not the Barisan Sosialis, Sir.

Carry on.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, once more, with sincerity and earnestness, let us face this problem with an open heart and with a full realisation of the interests of our State and our generations to come. 3.51 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in our world there are often imposters. Therefore, amidst the nationalists there are also such imposters. These people arc false nationalists. They say that they want a national reunification in principle, but once reunification is achieved, the people of the two territories will continue to be divided. Where then is the reunification of the two territories'! The P.A.P. are posing as nationalists, but there are others who are the genuine nationalists. The principal aim of these genuine nationalists is this. Once reunification is achieved, the people of the two territories will be able to undertake an identical life in the fields of politics, economics and culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, our amendment is based on our dedication to the interest of many thousands of Singapore citizens. However frustrated the socialist movement may feel, we must have confidence to overcome difficulties if only to safeguard the interest of the people of Singapore from being reduced to second-class citizens. As followers of socialism, we should be able to stand firm in the face of great difficulties. In the history of world revolution, only progressive movements can continue to survive and the retrogressive ones will always go backwards. Mr Speaker, Sir, the actions of the Barisan Sosialis are not for the interests of a few of us only. Whatever we do is for the interest of the people of Singapore as a whole. Our opinion is this. After a true merger of the two territories is achieved, the citizens of Singapore and of the Federation of Malaya should have the same citizenship rights. In other words, Singapore citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya on Merger Day. This proposal of the Barisan Sosialis is based on the interest of the citizens of Singapore. But we have very often heard the P.A.P.'s arguments. They claim to be representative of the people. They used to say that they wanted to sacrifice for the people, but now we have seen what they really are. The time has come when many thousands of keen eyes are watching whether the leadership of the P.A.P. are really sincere in fighting for the interests of the people of Singapore, because the destinies of the citizens of Singapore are in the hands of the leadership of the P.A.P. This is a very dangerous time for the future welfare and interests of the people. This is a very important period. The leadership of the P.A.P. want to strengthen their own interests by selling out the interests of the people. They have given the interests of the people of Singapore as a gift to other people. This is a very evil action. If the leadership of the P.A.P. has really worked for the interests of the people of Singapore, then when they come to this important test, it will be seen whether they will endure the test of fire. In other words, their real faces will be exposed - whether they are foxes or angels. The leaders of the P.A.P. are opposed to our amendment to the motion. They are opposed to our suggestion that we should automatically become citizens of the new Federation after reunification. They have put the blame on us, but actually the blame should be On themselves. Therefore, over 600,000 citizens will be sold away by the P.A.P. In this case, the history of Singapore will tell our offspring that the leaders of the P.A.P. are the sellers of our citizenship. Mr Speaker, Sir, a nationalist, seeking nationalism at a time when the two territories of our country are separated, will feel very sad about this because we are part of an independent entity, although we had been ruled by colonialists for so long a time; and therefore in an independent federation this aim is very attractive. We should try to be part of an independent nation. As patriots we should review the present situation when the two territories are still being separated, and the task of reuniting the two territories is the most important task which everyone of us should undertake. The reunification of the two territories is what we want. It is not a dishonest cheque. We do not want to cheat the people. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis are never opposed to any true merger. On the contrary, the Barisan Sosialis have always striven hard to seek the reunification of the two territories. But since the sell-out of the people has been exposed, we the Barisan Sosialis have very positively and realistically put forward our stand on merger, and have announced this to all the people. 4.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): What we really want is a kind of merger that looks after the interests of the people, and not after our own interests. To create tension and sell put the citizenship rights of the people of Singapore is not -

Point of order, Sir,Is the Member for Pasir Panjang not repeating the same point again and again - this sell out? He is wasting the time of this House.

Order. I do not think he is repeating the whole speech. If he is, then he will be out of order. Mr Tee Kim Leng.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have already deleted many words in my speech. I think perhaps it will take half an hour to complete my speech due to translation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we the Barisan Sosialis have on many occasions stated publicly that upon a merger of the two territories, Singapore should become the twelfth State of the Federation. Singapore citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation and the ratio of representation in the Federal Parliament should be based on the number of citizens in Singapore, in other words, proportionate representation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to spend too much time on the White Paper setting cut the heads of agreement on merger, but when the Assembly is discussing this White Paper, I shall give my views on it. I do not want to say too much about it now. On the question of citizenship rights after merger, once again we have very often given a statement on our views and our stand. We have always insisted on a true reunification of the two territories - that the citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the Federation. That is to say, the present 600,000 and more citizens of Singapore, irrespective of whether they come from the Federation, India, Indonesia, China or any other country, i.e. irrespective of their place of origin, should, according to Article 22 of the Federation Constitution, be automatically converted into citizens at the Federation. This is the basic stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the citizenship question. This is the basic and fundamental prerequisite and we will never give way an inch because this is the basic right of the citizens of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have on many occasions heard the Prime Minister talk irrelevantly about merger and the citizenship issue, and not in accord with our proposals in regard to citizenship rights and other side issues. Instead he has tried to confuse and mislead the people. The Prime Minister has very often said that complete merger will mean that only those citizens who were born in Singapore could automatically become citizens of the Federation, This comes from the horse's own mouth. We the Barisan Sosialis have never said so. We wholeheartedly want to achieve what we have advocated and which is contained in the provisions of Article 22 of the Federation of Malaya Constitution. Under Article 22 there is a clear provision saying that: 'If any new territory is admitted to the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, Parliament may by law determine what persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates from which such persons are to be citizens.' In regard to the question of citizenship rights, the Prime Minister of the Federation has expressed his views. He says that Singapore, apart from the three Bornean territories, i.e., Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak, can be admitted in accordance with Article 22 of the Federation Constitution. The people in these three Bornean territories can automatically become citizens of the new Federation. Why cannot the citizens of Singapore automatically become the citizens of the new Federation? On 16th November, the Tunku said at the Singapore Airport that Singapore is a naughty boy because complete merger would cause unrest to the Federation. That is why the Federation does not want automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federation citizens. But it is incorrect for a Party which professes to be acting and working for the interests of the people of Singapore, to kow-tow to the Federation, to sell out the basic interests of the people, to make the citizens of Singapore second-class citizens, and to let the citizens of Singapore have obligations hut no rights, to do such things. This question is vital to the future and fate of the people of Singapore. The question of citizenship in a merger must be solved through discussions between the two territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Our stand is this. During the course of the discussions on merger between the two territories, the Government should state, as our basic principle, that from the day of merger all citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the new Federation. We insist that we should safeguard the interests of the people of Singapore. We, therefore, maintain positively that once the two territories are merged, all the citizens of Singapore should not lose their citizenship rights. What the Barisan Sosialis want is that on merger, the present 600,000 citizens of Singapore should be automatically converted into citizens of the Federation. This request is right and reasonable. On the question of general elections and electing representatives to the Federal Parliament, every citizen should have the Pan-Malayan right to stand for election or to vote at any place in the Federation. This merger will have no meaning and no value without these rights. It is no merger at all. Therefore, the P.A.P. type of merger can be said to be a kind of sell-out merger. In fact, it is not based on the reunification of the two territories, and it is not in the interest of the people of the two territories. All Malayan nationalists and patriots will resolutely oppose this kind of merger. The people of Singapore are now very concerned over this question of merger. They are watching our progress. Up till now there have been many classes and many groups of people who have expressed their views on the question of merger. Yesterday the Chinese Chamber of Commerce convened an Executive Committee meeting to discuss this question. They urged that when the two territories merge, the interests of the people of the two territories should not be sold out. They decided to convene a meeting of representatives of civic organisations in Singapore to discuss the question of merger and other related problems. I believe they will reflect the wishes and opinions of all the people of Singapore. When the time comes -

Point of order. Can the Member read out any passage or any statement made by any member of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce concerning the statement?

If the Member is reading out, then it is out of order. But the Member was just quoting.

Then he quoted falsely!

(In Mandarin): By that time the P.A.P. leadership will realise the importance of equal citizenship rights on merger. This is not entirely the demand of a few Barisan Sosialis Members. Mr Deputy Speaker, on 21st November, the Minister for Finance touched on the question of genuine merger of the two territories, in particular, on the question of conversion of Singapore citizenship to Federal citizenship. He admitted that the demand of the Barisan Sosialis is in conformity with the interests of the people of Singapore. He said that the reason why the Government of the Federation of Malaya did not agree to automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federal citizens is that there were Communist elements among the people of Singapore. But I well recall what our Prime Minister said. He said that there were only 300 Communist agents in Singapore. How is it that it has now been increased to 620,000 Communists? Is it not possible that the P.A.P. leaders have taken the opponents of the P.A.P. to mean Communists? So they now try to make the 620,000 people of Singapore out as communists and they are going to sell out the rights of these people. If the P.A.P. leadership deny that the 620,000 people of Singapore are Communists, why then would they not fight for the automatic conversion of these citizens to Federal citizens just for the sake of a few Communists? They would be arrested under the Internal Security Council in Malaya. Why should the Federation of Malaya be so afraid? I think the situation is not that simple. What the Federation of Malaya want is not the people of Singapore. What they want is the territory of Singapore. What the P.A.P. is trying to do is to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore in order to safeguard their position. Therefore, they have collaborated with each other to fulfil their own personal, interests. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Finance has also said that after the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, the people of Singapore will retain their rights as Singapore citizens. They can stand for election in Singapore. The people in the Federation can stand for election in the Federation of Malaya too. Does he mean that before the merger of the two territories, the citizens of Singapore cannot stand for election in Singapore? If so, how did Members of this House come here?

On a point of clarification.

If the Member will give way.

(In Mandarin): No.

The Member will not give way. Mr Tee Kim Leng.

(In Mandarin): Even before the merger of the two territories, the people of Singapore can stand for election in any constituency in the island. After merger Singapore citizens can only retain their right to stand for election in Singapore. What then is the meaning of this merger? The people of these two territories will still continue to be separated. They cannot participate freely in a common political life. They cannot enjoy common economic benefits. Only external affairs and defence will be in the hands of the Federation Government. Furthermore, the people of Singapore will have to hand over $90 million to the Federation Government. If war were to break out in the Federation of Malaya, or if the Federation wished to send troops overseas, then the citizens of Singapore would be conscripted. But the people of Singapore have no right on a national basis. Does it mean that we are giving up $90 million just in exchange for the right to have a national passport? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in these past few days we in this House have been hearing speeches concerning merger with the Federation of Malaya. Every one of the Ministers has his own particular ideas. For example, the Minister for Health and Law, speaking about his idea of merger between the two territories, based his speech on the law. But the Minister for Finance admitted that it is in accordance with Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, hut due to the Communists in Singapore it is impossible to do so. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have heard the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya admit on many occasions that with the reunification of the two territories, Singapore citizens will automatically become citizens of the Federation according to Article 22, so long as it is passed in the Federal Parliament. But the question is whether the Federation Government is willing to do so. We the Barisan Sosialis have moved an amendment to the effect that Singapore citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation. In the past few days, the P.A.P. leadership have found no material to refute our arguments. Their minds are confused and they have lost their reasoning. The frank and sincere Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has also been despised by the P.A.P. leaders. Therefore, in the past few days Government Ministers have said that according to the Federation Constitution, Singapore citizens will not be able to become Federal citizens. They have to apply for citizenship right or through naturalisation. In such a case, more than 600,000 citizens in Singapore will lose their citizenship right. The P.A.P. maintain that they want to keep Singapore citizenship. These are but false and hypocritical arguments. It is just like a cat shedding tears at the plight of the rat. So very pitiful are the P.A.P. leadership. They are on tenterhooks and, at the same time, they have offended the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. The views of the P.A.P. Ministers conflict with those of the Federation on the question of citizenship. The Prime Minister of the Federation has said that Singapore citizens could automatically become Federal citizens according to law. It could be done. But the P.A.P. Ministers have always maintained that it cannot be done. They maintain that the citizens of Singapore will have to apply in accordance with the citizenship provisions of the Federation. From this, it can be seen that - The Minister for Culture (Mr Rajaratnam) rose -

On a point of order?

Point of order. It has struck me, Sir, that the Member is referring extensively to his notes, since he is referring to the same page and repeating the same thing.

I do not think it is a point of order, but maybe the Member can refer to his pages.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, from this we can see that the P.A.P. Ministers have indirectly accused the Hon. Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya of not understanding the citizenship laws of the Federation. The legal experts of the P.A.P. Government and the P.A.P. Ministers have perhaps been too confused in their opposition to the Barisan Sosialis' amendment. They have thus offended the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. The P.A.P. leadership is rather pitiful. 4.36 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, for almost 14 days we have been debating this motion on merger to which an amendment has been moved by the Member for Queens-town. In every speech of the Members from the Barisan Sosialis, there is not one argument put forth by them that can be considered as genuine and sincere. In fact, when the Member for Queenstown delivered his address, which took him 7� hours, I was under the impression that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, whether they are Communists or pro-Communist groups, were prepared to face the hard fact that merger was inevitable. I felt that they were merely asking for the type of merger which they moved in the amendment, that is to say, complete merger with automatic citizenship for all Singapore citizens, and Singapore becoming the twelfth State in the Federation of Malaya. However, it transpires that that is not what they asked for, because after the 7� hours' marathon speech by the Member for Queenstown on complete merger, citizenship, basic and fundamental rights, etc., it led us to think he did, in fact, want a complete merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, this means that he and the Barisan Sosialis want independence through merger. Every Member of the Barisan Sosialis who spoke said that the Barisan Sosialis would struggle for full internal self-government for Singapore, if complete merger could not be effected. Mr Deputy Speaker, the issue before us and the State is whether we want merger as outlined in the basic agreements contained in the White Paper, or merger as suggested by the Member for Queenstown. There are two choices, Mr Deputy Speaker, and not three. The reason being that the third one mentioned by the Member for Queenstown today is obsolete, whilst the people of Singapore and the people of Malaya are struggling for complete independence through merger. What did the Member for Queenstown mean when he moved this out-of-date amendment, that is to say, full internal self-government? Earlier on, I have said that the Member for Queenstown and his Party are insincere and dishonest. I mean that they know that their demand for merger, with all its implications, is unreasonable and cannot find acceptance by the Federation Government. In the circumstances, they are aware that the demand will be rejected. Therefore, the demand has been deliberately brought up. The second proposal, that is to say, confederation, is also a proposal which is not acceptable to the people, so they go back to the third proposal, that is, a self-governing status with the I.S.C. abolished and responsibility for internal matters being placed in their own hands. What is the meaning of this? If the I.S.C. is abolished and placed in the hands of the Barisan Sosialis, then there is no need for me to relate the consequences and implications. That is the sincerity of the Barisan Sosialis. 4.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by introducing this false merger proposal, the P.A.P. leadership have exposed themselves. All the people in Singapore know that they have sold their interest. When politicians are faced with a desperate position, they will continue to maintain their political line by hook or by crook. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this merger motion by the P.A.P. was actually unnecessary. In this Session of the Legislative Assembly, the most important thing is to debate the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. From the very beginning of the speech, there is mention of merger and it occupies about one-third of the whole of the speech. The contents of the motion of the Minister for Labour could have been included in the text of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. What was the intention or the motive of the Government for not having done so? The motion of the Prime Minister on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech seeks to ask the Assembly to express its thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech. But when the Government came to know that we were going to expose them with our amendment on merger, they resorted to other means. We want to express our regret that the Government is pursuing a merger policy which is contrary to the interest of the people of the two territories, and we urge them to reorientate its policy in conformity with the ardent desire of the people for a genuine reunification. What did the Government do when we tabled our amendment? They were at their wit's end. They did not know whether to attack us or retreat, knowing that their merger is a sell-out of the interest of the people. Are they to agree with our amendment? If they do so, the Federation Government will be offended, as this is contrary to their policy of selling out the interest of the people. What should the P.A.P. Government then do on the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis? So they think that it is necessary to raise a motion to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, they can hoodwink the people by offering them false hopes for their happiness and comfort, and on the other hand, they can please the Federation Government. In order to please the people of Singapore, they are attempting to whitewash the terms of their motion so as to make it appear very nice. They accuse the British of many things so that they may appear to be anti-colonialists. In order to please the Federation, they have to attack the Barisan Sosialis in the course of debate by alleging that it is a communal Party. That is why the Government have raised this motion, to attack and embarrass us. But the dream of the Government has been smashed by us. On the face of it, the motion looks nice, but between the lines there is something else which is the height of treachery. They want to give the people some false impression because they have not inserted the correct adjective before the word "merger". The Government do not indicate whether it is a true or a phoney merger. Therefore we now have an opportunity to counter-attack the arrogant P.A.P. We have taken them unawares by tabling an amendment to the motion. By adding the word "genuine" before "merger", this is to prevent the P.A.P. from distorting the facts and bamboozling the people. The effect of our amendment is that all Singapore citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation on Merger Day. But this hurried adroitness has caused the ruling clique of the P.A.P. to bring up some other form of trickery. They have tabled a so-called White Paper on merger. One can well imagine the many trickeries and manoeuvres of the P.A.P. No matter how resourceful they can be in the playing of words, terms and the introduction of new trickeries, the people of Singapore know that basically the contents of the motion are very treacherous. They amount to a sell-out of Singapore. Today when we are debating the question of merger which affects everyone in Singapore and in the Federation of Malaya irrespective of skin and religion, we see the self-professed socialist ruling clique of the P.A.P. fanning the sparks of communalism and trying to arouse suspicion among the different communities in order to sour their relationship with one another. Now, they are fatalist; they are no longer true followers of socialism. They have already forgotten the promises they made in the l959 general elections. At the sitting of 21st November, the Minister for Finance said that the period 1954 to 1959 was a phase in the anti-colonial struggle. How correct this is. It follows that in 1959, when the P.A.P. ruling clique became Ministers, this phase of the anti-colonial struggle should have come to an end.

What about you?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will remember the many policies declared by the P.A.P. to all the people of Singapore in 1959. I hope all the P.A.P. members and Assemblymen will take another look at their Five-Year Plan. We can then understand clearly why they now want to push through this phoney merger with speed and vigour. On 19th April, 1959, at the Jalan Limau mass rally, the present Minister for Culture had this to say. He was responsible for reading the policy -

Order. If the hon. Member is quoting from a booklet or a newspaper, he must inform the House from which booklet or newspaper he is quoting.

(In Mandarin): Just now I said that the hon. Member was responsible for reading an article which is entitled "The Path Towards a Malayan Nation". There is a passage relating to communalism. This is something which the P.A.P. promised to the people of Singapore in the 1959 general elections. This is from Part I of the P.A.P.'s small pamphlet entitled "The Task Ahead". The passage is entitled "Class and Communalism". I hope the Minister for Culture will listen carefully. This is what he himself said.

I think this is an appropriate time to adjourn for tea. The Assembly is suspended is suspended until half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was saying just now that the Minister for Culture had on 19th April, 1959, made a speech entitled "Towards a Malayan Nation". This could be found in the P.A.P.'s "The Tasks Ahead". Now, I want to throw at them their own words. It appears on page 8 of the Chinese version, and on page 14 of the English version. It says: 'In fact the intervention of the racialist merely tends to distract attention from the real causes of economic discontent. For this reason the communal politician often becomes the tool of reactionary vested interests who want to divert the attention of impoverished workers and peasants from the real causes of poverty. If Chinese, Malay and Indian workers and farmers can be led to believe that economic conflict is based on racial rather than class interests, then, so the forces of reaction calculate, there will be no danger of Chinese, Malay and Indian workers uniting on a class basis to resist exploitation by Chinese, Indian, Malay and British capitalists. Thus it is significant that left-wing and socialist parties in Malaya are organised on a non-racial and non-communal basis. On the other hand communal parties in Malaya, by and large, stand for the economic status quo - that is for a capitalist society.' Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that on the 21st December the Minister for Finance said that "the purpose and true aim of our merger is to overthrow the Right-wing reactionary Government of the Federation." It is truly so. It is well said. We thank the Minister for Culture very much if he could use the words he used in 1959 to explain to the Minister for Finance. Mr Speaker, Sir, "the suspicion between the different communities is due to the discontent and fears over economic situations." Can the Minister for Culture recall this statement - "Poverty knows no Race"? I will now continue to talk about the struggle for the reunification of the two territories and the problem of nation-building. The Minister at that time said that: 'We, of the P.A.P. also believe that an essential part of the struggle to build a Malayan nation is to bring about the merger of Singapore and the Federation. The separation of the two territories was partly the result of communal fears on the part of Malay leaders in the Federation.'

On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Low Por Tuck resumed his seat.

I think the hon. Member's quotation is not quite complete. Will he read the whole paragraph?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been quoting this passage from an article which deals with the problem of working "Towards a Malayan Nation". There are only a few sentences more: 'They [i.e., the leaders in the Federation] tear that the acceptance of Singapore as one of the political units of the Federation would result in the Chinese being in the majority. We, of the PAP, reject the myth that political actions are determined on the basis of race.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I will repeat this, as stated by the Minister for Culture in the last general elections: 'We, of the P.A.P. reject the myth that political actions are determined on the basis of race.' He continued: 'Some of our political enemies have alleged that the PAP, is a stumbling block to merger because our so-called "extremist" attitude has frightened Federation leaders. If what is "extreme" is our political ideology - i.e. the ideology of democratic socialism - then merger is being refused not because there is doubt about our devotion to Malayan nationalism hut because of our allegiance to a socialist philosophy.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I will reiterate this because it is very important - the reason for refusal of merger is "not because there is doubt about our devotion to Malayan nationalism but because of our allegiance to a socialist philosophy" - and that is why they have rejected it. He continued to say: 'If our right-wing opponents arc right in this then it would be another illustration of our thesis that communalism is often used as a cloak to cover up class interests.' Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat - "communalism is often used as a cloak to cover up class interests." The Minister for Culture then continued to say: 'However, we believe that merger will come about not by political leaders in Singapore and in the Federation, making a decision on the matter, hut only when the people of Singapore and the Federation want it.' Mr Speaker, this is the heart of the problem. The realisation of merger does not depend on what the political leaders in Singapore and the Federation decide, hut rather on what the people of Singapore and the Federation want. But today the ruling clique of the P.A.P. have forgotten what they promised to the people in 1959. The Minister for Culture then continued to say: '...the people of Singapore want merger, the people of the Federation, in particular the Malays, have been frightened into believing that merger means Chinese domination. We in Singapore should by our actions remove such fears. When we do that and when people in the Federation realise that race and religion have nothing to do with politics or economics, then the merger of Singapore and the Federation becomes inevitable.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this was said in 1959. But today, the P.A.P. leadership have forgotten it entirely. You cannot use it to fool the people because this was our promise to the people in 1959. Mr Speaker, Sir, we use the above quotations to advise those who play with communalism. In other words, only when we and the people of the Federation can understand that religion and race have nothing to do with politics will the time come when the two territories can be merged. There is another quotation by him: 'For the reactionaries the end of communal politics will pose new dangers. It will not longer be possible for them to divert people's attention from the political and economic causes of social unrest by playing up racial issue.' Mr Speaker, is it not very clear from all these quotations that today the leaders of the P.A.P. have forgotten all these entirely? The most important thing is that they have not only forgotten this but they are now turn-coats. They are no longer socialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, has raised a series of questions. I think it is not necessary for me to remind the P.A.P. leadership of this. One thing I regret very much is that all these questions which have been raised by us have not been answered by the P.A.P. leadership. They were answered instead by the Parliamentary Secretaries. The answers too were not complete. The self-professed theoretician of the P.A.P., the Minister for Culture, has avoided these questions and has not answered them. Instead he has used the Straits Times, a colonialist newspaper, to answer us - using the tone used by this newspaper. He said, "Will you please tell us the reason why you are not detained?" He used this question to counter us. He has been many years a -

On a point of order. Sir, an allegation has been made -

Order. When a Member rises on a point of order the Member for Havelock must sit down.

It is not a point of order.

The Member for Havelock is not the Speaker! Perhaps he would like to be the Speaker? Mr Rajaratnam.

I was quoted as saying that some people would be put into prison or something like that. He quoted from the Straits Times. I want to know the reference where and when.

I think the point is well taken. An allegation has been made that the Minister has made a statement which he now says he has never made. Perhaps the hon. Member for Havelock will be able to quote from a newspaper or from any other document.

Can I answer a few words in English?

I am sorry. The hon. Member has chosen to speak in Mandarin. He must carry on in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said just now was that the Minister for Culture has adopted colonialist tactics. That is what I meant. I did not mean that they wanted to arrest anybody.

Unless the interpretation was not correct, I think there was a definite statement that the Minister for Culture said in so many words that he wished to put certain Members into prison. If that statement is not correct, then, of course, the Member for Havelock can say he never said that.

(In Mandarin): I did not say so just now. I only said that he used this sort of tactics, because I remember when I was detained, the colonial rulers asked me to answer why I should not be detained. According to the general method, if you want to detain a person, you must give what reason you have to detain him. But the Government did not do so. The Government would ask the person detained to give reasons why he should not be detained. What I mean to say is that the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, has raised a series of questions. But the Government have not answered these questions directly. Instead they have used this tactic to deal with us, namely, the tactic I mentioned just now. It is the duty of the Government to answer our queries. How can the Government shift the burden of replying on to our shoulders? If they cannot answer them, then, Mr Speaker, I call upon them to resign. Step down and let the people elect another government. Mr Speaker, the henchman of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Culture, said that we -

On a point of order. Is the term "henchman" a term of abuse, in which case it is unparliamentary; or is it a term of endearment, in which case it is unbecoming?

The answer is that if the term "henchman" is used in a certain context and is said to be offensive, then, of course, it is unparliamentary. Then if the Minister says it is offensive, I will certainly rule it as being unparliamentary. I do not think the Minister has said that.

In which context would it be meant?

I think the interpretation of a word must be the interpretation of the Member offended.

(In Mandarin): It is truly so. What I said was "henchman". He said: "We are not dealing with citizenship rights in an abstract way." If so, why then do they not accept our view which is realistic in relation to the problem before us? Mr Speaker, Sir, the self-professed theoretician of the P.A.P., namely the Hon. Minister for Culture, has requested us to declare our stand whether we accept the education and labour policies of the Federation Government, whether we accept the policy wherein they control our trade and economy, and whether we accept the ratio of 4: 1 for recruitments into the civil service which is now being practised in the Federation. He has also said that our request for automatic Federal citizenship is only used to sabotage merger. All this pretence of sincerity in wanting merger cannot cover up the true facts. The Minister for Culture says that we use all this to camouflage our true desire to sabotage merger. I want to ask our respected Hon. Minister for Culture [Interruption].

There have been several epithets thrown across the floor, one side to the other and so on. But these epithets can become offensive if repeated too often and repeated in a tone of voice which is offensive. Mr Low.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we the Barisan Sosialis find it necessary to restate our stand on merger. I hope all hon. Members will not distort these facts or pick phrases at random without regard to their context. This should not be the attitude of a person who is in a responsible position, especially the leadership of the P.A.P. On the 28th of August this year, we issued a statement of our stand on merger. Although the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis has mentioned it, I want to mention it again. This is because the P.A.P. Ministers have very often distorted our public announcements. Let me quote from our booklet on our stand on merger in the Chinese version: 'We fully support the reunification of the two territories. The separation is the result of the colonial rulers' tactics. We want to try our best to build a new Malayan nation. We resolutely oppose any form of chauvinistic consciousness .We will fight for the consolidation and reunification of all workers, farmers, and intellectuals of all races. We support Malay as our national language.' I will repeat, Sir: 'We support Malay as our national language.' 'We will try our best to promote and foster the formation and development of a common culture of all races of Malaya. We also say that if the representatives of the Federation of Malaya adopt the same steps on merger as we have adopted, and agree to the realisation of complete merger, then we are prepared to persuade the people of Singapore to agree that Singapore should be the twelfth State of the Federation. Like the other 11 States, we will be an integral part of the new Federation, with Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federation citizens and with proportional representation in the Federal Parliament. There should be a general election in Singapore to enable the people to make an open choice and to decide on this question, in this general election, we can seek a mandate from the people for the realisation of the immediate establishment of a true and complete merger. Let the Federation Government tell us in unequivocal terms whether they are prepared to persuade the people there to accept Singapore as the twelfth State and to bring about a true and complete merger before 1963. In fact, the many policies of the present Right-wing Federation Government are what we cannot accept -

I think that statement has already been read about three times by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. If the hon. Member paraphrases that statement, it will be much better. We cannot have so much repetition.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before making this quotation, I told you just now that I was going to repeat. The reason is that the P.A.P. Ministers used to distort our stand on merger.

That is all very well, but all the Member need say is that his Party's policy statement has been read in this Chamber and he invites the Members on the Government side to read that policy statement again. But I do not think that policy statement should be inflicted on this House three or four times.

Hear, hear!

Order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you say so, well, it is not necessary for me to repeat. But I hope that, as a responsible Government Minister, when he quotes the speeches made by others, he will do it faithfully and honestly and not distort the facts. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture - he has just disappeared - on the 22nd of November said that this stand taken by the Barisan Sosialis on complete merger was not a true merger. He said the real purpose was to ask for full internal self-government, which includes control over internal security. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Tunku in the Federal Parliament last month very frankly told us that he did not want a true merger. What he wanted was that Singapore should have closer association with the Federation on the basis of partnership. Therefore, we the Barisan Sosialis on the 3rd of November issued a statement. The last passage of the statement clearly tells the people the path of the present constitutional struggle. Let me quote: 'We want to stress once more that merger is our main objective. If merger can immediately be realised, we are prepared to persuade the people of Singapore to accept this opportunity to reunite all the people. Because the Tunku has clearly stated his stand, our request for immediate merger cannot be realised in the near future. Therefore, we must consider other avenues of constitutional advance. We agree that we should have some form of relationship with the Federation. This should be on the basis of full internal self-government, including control over internal security, as one step towards eventual merger. While we are awaiting to establish closer relationship with the Federation, the people's constitutional struggle must not be stopped.' Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat, while we are awaiting to establish closer relationship with the Federation, the people's constitutional struggle should not now be stopped. When the people want to be united to resolve our many problems, we cannot forget the fact that the existence of the colonial power is the main factor which contributes to the separation of the two territories and the separation of the people of the two territories.

Order. I think I had better read the relevant Standing Order, because I do not wish to appear to be obstructive, but I am bound by Standing Orders which have been passed by this Assembly. Standing Order 44, which says inter alia: '...a Member shall not read his speech, but he may read short extracts from books or papers in support of his argument, and may refresh his memory by reference to notes.' That is, in support of his own arguments. I do not want any extracts, which appear to be the arguments of some other people.

This is exactly what I am doing, Sir.

I think the hon. Member has gone much further than reading short extracts. He is now reading an opinion on the whole topic expressed by somebody who has written that pamphlet.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a statement issued by the Barisan Sosialis on the road towards the present constitutional struggle. Because on the 22nd of November, the Minister for Culture said that the demand by the Barisan Sosialis for complete merger was not a true merger. I therefore, find it necessary to reiterate our stand on this. There is only a very short passage left. 'The divide and rule policy of the imperialists needs no explanation. Any form of anti-colonial struggle is not inconsistent with the unity of our people. But, on the other hand, it is complementary to it. In marching towards the consolidation of our people, we have to exert ourselves to eliminate colonialism in Singapore completely. Therefore, if we cannot establish a good and complete relationship with the Federation of Malaya in the immediate future, we must struggle for full internal self-government by 1963.' Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 27th of November, the Minister for Home Affairs mentioned something about me in the Nanyang Siang Pau of 28th November. I quote here: 'The Member for Havelock was Secretary to the PAP. Tanjong Pagar Branch. He convinced the Branch Executive Committee meeting and pledged before all the Executive members that he would resolutely stand together with us to meet all storm and hurricane coming. How brave were these words he uttered! But when the storm and hurricane really came, the Member for Havelock and his few friends hid themselves away in the Federation.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I did make such a pledge, but we were making it before our P.A.P. banner and not before any P.A.P. Minister or any individual of the P.A.P. We followed the principles of the Party. We were not doing this to please any individual of the P.A.P. If we did all these for our own personal interests, then I should not be standing here today in this Assembly. But the ruling clique of the P.A.P. have today forgotten what I have said. This was all done at the general elections in 1959. There was no falsehood in my quoting. It is in black and white. But today when they have become Ministers, they have forgotten their promises made to the people in the general elections in 1959. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been debating the question of merger for many days. The ruling clique of the P.A.P. today are still insisting on saying that a partnership relationship is merger. Now, whether the ruling clique of the P.A.P. are sincere or not has been exposed today. The Tunku has on many occasions said that the negotiations between the two Prime Ministers of the two territories are only on a closer relationship and not on merger. It is not merger. All political Parties in Singapore, irrespective of whether they are Left-wing or Right-wing Parties, have said that these arrangements are not of a true merger. Only the P.A.P. have said that it is a merger. I wonder very much why the P.A.P. leadership nowadays do not honestly and frankly want to confess this. I cannot understand the ruling clique of the P.A.P. Do they want to throw the reputation of the P.A.P. into the night-soil pit and let it stay there and stink forever? Though we do not agree with the Tunku's views, we at least find him honest and frank. He has honestly disclosed that he is anti-Communist and does not want merger. The present arrangements are only to prevent the Communists from controlling Singapore. Why does our Prime Minister not want to learn from the Tunku? If he does so, at least he will not be accused by the people of being dishonest and his name will not stink in future years. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, the phoney merger proposed by the ruling clique of the P.A.P. has been thoroughly exposed today. All the people of Singapore know that this is a kind of sell-out merger. The ruling clique of the P.A.P. have been playing about with the word "citizenship". They are fishing in troubled waters. They want to hoodwink the people if they can. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to admonish them. The people of Singapore have experienced many a political struggle. They have now become more intelligent and they are not so gullible. They cannot be deceived so easily. I hope the P.A.P. leadership will give up their attempt and walk on concrete ground. They should think in terms of the daily lives of the people and they should rack their brains to improve the future livelihood of the people. I hope they will check themselves. There is still time for them to turn back. They are now faced with a situation where all their friends have rebelled against them and their relatives have deserted them. They are now with their backs to the wall. They are now at the end of their tether. They are now trying to attack us erratically to maintain their political power and position. This is wrong. I hope they will turn back. There is still time for them to do so. 6.48 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few days ago, the "General" of the Barisan Sosialis proposed his amendment to the motion. I oppose this amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, because he is opposed to a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

(In Mandarin): On a point of order, Sir. Just now I clearly stated the views of my Party, and at this very moment an hon. Member here wants to distort our views saying that we are anti merger.

That is not a point of order. No Member should get up on a point of order and then start debating. The Member for Tiong Bahru is perfectly entitled to put forward his own opinion. Mr Lee Teck Him.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members opposite -

Order. The Member for Tiong Bahru must not lose his temper. He has a Speaker who is controlling the tempo and the temper of this sitting. Mr Lee Teck Him.

(In Mandarin): We have our own will and we try to be righteous. Of course, sometimes we cannot help but be angry. The hon. Member says they are not opposed to merger. I think they want an independent Singapore. But Singapore is a small island State. The land is very limited and the population is not very big. How then can it be independent? It is really nonsense to want it to be so. There is not enough of natural produce.

(In Mandarin): On a point of order.

It must be a point of order, otherwise the hon. Member will be dealt with very strictly.

(In Mandarin): Yes. We are now discussing merger and not independence.

Order. This present debate has been so intertwined with the other debates that I have said time and again that I am being very lenient in these matters. The incidental reference to independence has been allowed in several speeches and will still be allowed by the Chair. Mr Lee Teck Him.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there should be a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya because the people of the two territories are just like fingers of the hand. They are like brothers and they cannot be separated. In the past, the colonial rulers separated the two territories to rule over them. But why should the Member for Queenstown oppose merger now? I think he opposes merger now because he has had a cup of tea with the United Kingdom Commissioner in Singapore. He is willing to be made use of by the British. This is a kind of the British divide-and-rule policy. For the cup of tea he has sipped, he tries to sell out Singapore and its people. But he turns round and accuses us of selling out the people. Of course, since the Barisan Sosialis are now separated from us, they want to attack and ridicule us. They met with defeat. As they were only 13 in number, they wanted to pull us over to their side. But we are 26 in number and they are now only a minority. It is very pitiful. They could not achieve their purpose which was to make one of them the Prime Minister. If they could have mustered 26 Members, then perhaps they could have formed the Government with the Member for Queenstown as the Prime Minister. He wants very much to be the Prime Minister. [Interruption] I do not want to be the Prime Minister.

Order. I am afraid I do not know Mandarin. So I am missing all these pleasantries. But let us try to have some order. We might be able to save time if there is some order. Mr Lee.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis also claim that many people support them. If there are no people to support them, then, of course, they will not be doing what they are now doing. When the Barisan Sosialis applied for the registration of their Party, they copied out the Constitution of the P.A.P. and used it as their own Constitution.

Order. I do not think the fact that the Barisan Sosialis is alleged to have copied the P.A.P. rules has anything at all to do with merger - [Interruption] Order. I had better repeat that. I do not think the alleged fact that the Barisan Sosialis copied the rules of the P.A.P. has anything whatsoever to do with merger, unless the hon. Member is suggesting that the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. should merge!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mean to say that the Barisan Sosialis consider the P.A.P. Constitution to be so good that they copy it into their Constitution. This constitution is the P.A.P. Constitution. Are they not trying to deceive the people by using the P.A.P. Constitution? The people of the two territories want merger, but the Barisan Sosialis want to oppose it. This is a kind of sell-out by the Barisan Sosialis. Today we have to regard the Barisan Sosialis as one Mr Kao-kung who was a turncoat in Communist China. Mr Speaker, the day before yesterday, the Member for Changi said that in every coffee-shop and at every street corner of Singapore, the people are saying that the P.A.P. are no good. All this is not true. Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon) rose - Mr Lee Teck Him resumed his seat.

It does appear that the Member for Tiong Bahru is reading his speech - or referring far too much to it.

I have not noticed that at all. Mr Lee.

(In Mandarin): If I were reading my speech, I would not have had the time to gesticulate. in fact, the people are saying that the Barisan Sosialis are no good and that they should not have defected from the P.A.P. The people in coffee-shops and at street corners are saying that they should riot try to sabotage the P.A.P. They are now like worms trying to destroy the P.A.P. I will continue later on as to whether this is correct. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the time of the Hong Lim by-election, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis climbed on to the election platform to say that the P.A.P. was very good and they appealed to the electorate of Hong Lim to vote for the P.A.P. candidate, Mr Jek Yuen Thong. But they now turn round to say that the P.A.P. is no good. They are now slapping themselves on the other cheek. Once they said that the P.A.P. was very good but now they turn round to say that the P.A.P. is no good. This is only trying to slap their own cheek. [Laughter].

Order.

(In Mandarin): And the so-called 42 trade unions also appealed to the electorate to vote for the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, all these unfaithful former P.A.P. members will one day support the British. Now they can be treacherous to the P.A.P. But in future, perhaps Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends will do the same thing again. This is only a kind of cause and effect, and because this is the opportune time for them, they came out and formed the Barisan Sosialis. Their stand on politics is not stable, like a ship without a rudder. Therefore, the ship can never reach its goal. They claim that they want to fight against the colonialist rulers and achieve what-nots. But they can never realise these things, because their ship has no rudder. So how can they sail on to their self-professed objective? This ship will surely ram into a rock and sink. The Barisan Sosialis today appear to be very "nice and beautiful", but I say that in no time they will perish because they are arrogant, and I despise them. Today let me say that the Member for Choa Chu Kang used to criticise the Deputy Prime Minister. We know the Member for Choa Chu Kang in the past had long been following our Prime Minister. He had been together with our Prime Minister. Everybody knows this. His present knowledge of politics has, been acquired from the Prime Minister.

Order. For a moment I thought the hon. Member was shouting at the Speaker. I trust he was not really shouting at the Speaker.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, will you please repeat? I cannot hear very well.

Order. I said that the last remark made by the hon. Member was such that I really thought he was shouting at the Chair. I trust he was not.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a common saying in Chinese - a girl has asked her mother to cut out - [Interruption].

Order. This time I think I must be very strict. The Member for .Nee Soon has been interjecting in spite of my asking him to keep order. I ask him not to int6rject any further.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Member for Choa Chu Kang be more capable than the Prime Minister? Now, I want to support the motion moved by the Minister for Labour. Today, the two territories of Singapore and the Federation must merge. There is no other way out. Today the Chinese Chamber of Commerce has convened a Preparatory Committee to discuss this problem. In principle, they have supported this merger. Our Deputy Prime Minister has said that when all the details of merger have been settled, this question will be put to the people and be decided by them. The Member for Queenstown has said that our merger is a kind of sell-out; that it is a phoney merger. Mr Speaker, of we want a phoney merger, then we need not have to debate this question in the Assembly. We have already spent about one week over this question alone. This shows that we the P.A.P. have no intention to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore. Now I say that the people who try to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore are the Barisan Sosialis. 6.58 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify the problem with which we are faced in this Assembly. As a Malay, and as an U.M.N.O. member, let me say, be it to the P.A.P. which is in power today or to the Barisan Sosialis which has moved the amendment to the motion, this is a moment, in my opinion, which is crucial to our mutual interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, from what has been interpreted into Malay of the exchange of correspondence between the Prime Ministers of Singapore and the Federation, there is one phrase used - to effect the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya in the new Federation of Malaysia. From this, Mr Speaker, Sir, all accusations made of my colleagues, particularly the Member for Geylang Serai, for having adopted a communalistic attitude, are completely improper. To return to the issue, Mr Speaker. The Barisan Sosialis have been wavering right from the beginning. Although the Member for Thomson has stated the views of his Party, the challenge made by the Publicity Officer of U.M.N.O., Malaya, has not yet been taken up outside this Assembly. They should take it up so that the people of the Federation and Singapore may know what the Barisan's stand is. Mr Speaker, I very much regret to hear the Member for Changi saying in this Assembly something to the effect that there are people in Singapore who will oppose any attempts by people to sell the island of Singapore. May I ask the Member for Changi this, and if he has no chance of replying as he has already spoken, he could convey his reply to his colleagues who have not yet spoken, or he could reply outside this Assembly: who has the right to sell Singapore, and who has the right to demand Singapore? I am fortunate that the Prime Minister has just entered to listen to what I have to say. I will not accept in their entirety the arguments put forward by the Member for Thomson, whether they be true or not. I want to know once and for all whether it is true that the Tunku was referred to as ayah. I am surprised the Prime Minister of Singapore should, at a time when the Tunku was away in London, have expressed openly - and this was witnessed by thousands of people of Singapore - that the Tunku is, in fact, the father of independent Malaysia. If that was the opinion of the Prime Minister of Singapore, I am quite sure he will categorically deny that such an allegation is untrue. But if the Prime Minister of Singapore could declare openly that the Tunku is the father of independent Malaysia, then we, U.M.N.O., will support to the hilt the opinion of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, I will not be the stepson of Mao Tse-tung or Khrushchev, because I will oppose the amendment and support the father of independent Malaysia, i.e. Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj. People have said that Singapore has been sold to the Federation of Malaya. If it is true, then the time is opportune that the Tunku must take Singapore, just as Raffles conquered Singapore with pen and paper. So the moment is ripe for the Tunku to take Singapore into the Federation. This has been made clear by the Tunku. U.N.M.O. particularly did not at one time wish for merger, but now the Tunku wants merger. What are the reasons, Mr Speaker? The reasons are as reported in the newspaper, Berita Harian of 20th October, that if Singapore gets independence, then there is the danger of undesirable elements infiltrating into the Federation. There is no need for me to go into details. This is the reason why Singapore wants to be in much closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya. I do not wish to involve my friend, the Member for Geylang Serai, by mentioning the long "parang" or unsheathing the traditional Malay weapon, the kris or dagger, if the Communists dare to rule Singapore. I have already explained at U.M.N.O. meetings that a conflagration will ensue if Singapore is given full internal self-government. If Singapore rejects the Internal Security Council, it means, Mr Speaker, that communal tension will be intensified in Singapore. Therefore, we oppose the abolition of the Internal Security Council. We had already opposed that line before the Barisan Sosialis was registered in Singapore. There is another question the answer to which I wish to know. When the Alliance and U.M.N.O., particularly in Malaya, struggled for independence, whether with the inclusion of Singapore or otherwise - I am not supporting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, but I agree with his view that we were fighting colonialism with the seed of the Barisan Sosialis at that time. I seek clarification. Mr Speaker, I hope this clarification will be forthcoming from Members of the Barisan Sosialis who have not yet spoken. Mr Speaker, Sir, to come back to another matter which has been the subject of an allegation, particularly against the Malays. The Member for Thomson said that U.M.N.O., as represented by the Member for Geylang Serai, in his capacity as a member, is a communal organisation. If U.M.N.O. is really a communal political organisation, what communal demand has U.M.N.O. put to the P.A.P. Government? What has been given to us? I hope the Barisan Sosialis will reply to this. What had the Member for Geylang Serai, as an U.M.N.O. representative when he was a Minister in the Labour Front Coalition Government, done to give the impression that he was communal in outlook? I hope the Member for Thomson will clarify this. Or is it his intention to spread communal feelings in Singapore? We are against communalism. Mr Speaker, this is an important matter because many among us who have accepted Malay as the national language merely pay lip service to it. I observe that it was reported in the news-paper using the national language, the Berita Minggu dated 5th November, 1961, that at the Delegates Conference of U.M.N.O., Malaya, all U.M.N.O. members discussed the question of Merger heatedly. They were opposed to' the idea of Singapore being merged with the Federation. As explained by the Tunku and Tun Razak, the Mentri Besar of Malacca, Inche Ghaffar Baba, opposed the view of the Tunku and Tun Razak at the conference. Why is it that, on our part today, we view with suspicion the struggle of the Malays for independence? If we are still suspicious of the Malays and accuse U.M.N.O. of being a communal organisation, the P.M.I.P. is also a communal organisation. May I say to the Member for Thomson that Inche Ahmad Boestamam is a Malay, and that he was at one time the leader of the youth organisation who fought against British colonialism years back. So do not pay tribute to one side when we do not know what the other side is doing. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the dangers which will befall us in our struggle in Singapore if we still feel that U.M.N.O. is a communal organisation. I would like to state here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I do not agree at all with the view that. there should be local autonomy in education and labour. But viewing it from the larger and more important aspect, the P.A.P., by these means, is trying to get benefits for the Chinese people. We can, if we want to, oppose that stand, because that will be to the detriment of the Malays. But we have to come to agreement from time to time. I doubt if the Barisan Sosialis will agree to accept 100 per cent what is enshrined in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya regarding the Federation policies on education and so on. This is merely a political stunt on their part. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has also stated that the leaders of U.M.N.O., particularly those in the Federation, come to Singapore for political reasons and to give political lectures here. This is a small matter, Sir. Why did the Barisan Sosialis members, when they were still in the ranks of the P.A.P., fail to order the Registrar of Societies to refuse registration of our Constitution? If they accepted our Constitution, why then cannot the Federation U.M.N.O. members come down to Singapore to give political talks to U.M.N.O. members here? But after they have come out of the P.A.P., they now say that U.M.N.O. members from the Federation cannot give political lectures here.

On a point of order. I did not object to Alliance leaders coming to Singapore and delivering speeches. I did point out that they are welcome as our brothers across the Causeway, but that we want the same rights.

(In Malay): So, Mr Speaker, on he other hand, why cannot political experts from Singapore be allowed to go to the Federation? My answer is that the people of Singapore, including myself, are still under the wings of the British. That is the reason why we should not try to teach the people in the Federation on political matters. They are already independent. But there will be open chances and when the time comes, we will be able to breathe freely. We will then be facing one another in our struggle on a democratic basis. I shall await the day when Singapore and the Federation will be brought closer together, and we will have 15 representatives from Singapore in the Federation Parliament. I hope there will be Members from the Barisan Sosialis and from the P.A.P. who will be successful and who will sit together in the Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. I believe if the Alliance and U.M.N.O. are successful in winning a few seats, we too will sit there, and that will be the time when we will show whether we are communal or otherwise in our efforts to oppose the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang in his speech, which was of considerable length, stated that perhaps there are some of them who will be arrested by the Right-wing people. I am surprised. Why do we wish to arrest the Left-wingers? Are they such devils? Can you tell me that, Mr Speaker, Sir? So, if they are no devils but ordinary human beings, the Right-wing people will oppose them with words which come out of their mouths. If they force us to arrest them, then Dr Ismail, in his capacity as U.M.N.O. representative in the general meeting, has already clearly stated his stand. I do not wish to express here what he, as a responsible Minister, has said he would do to those people whom we can persuade by peaceful means not to bring up communalism. Mr Speaker, before the Tunku proclaimed the independence of the Federation of Malaya, he made an opening speech at the Second General Assembly of U.M.N.O. on 2nd June, 1957, in U.M.N.O. House, Batu Road, Kuala Lumpur. At that moment, a clash had taken place in Penang. I feel I should tell this House what the Tunku told us representatives of U.M.N.O. who were all Malay members. This is what the Tunku said, "We all know that the public in this country are at the moment making preparations for celebrating the 31st of August becomingly. The people want to -"

I am afraid the hon. Member is reading a bit too fast because the interpreters are finding difficulty. Perhaps he could start again reading slowly.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will continue. The Tunku said, "The people of this country want to celebrate Merdeka. They do not want to have a blood-bath as is intended by the enemies of this country. I still remember what took place in Penang in January this year. The cause of the clash was an instigation as I have stated earlier. During demonstrations there were arguments and all sorts of accusations were hurled back and forth. The Chinese accused the Malays of wanting to do certain things to the Chinese. As a result, innocent people were involved." The Tunku further stated that what had taken place in Penang could well happen again. 'Therefore, I ask members of U.M.N.O. and of the Alliance from this moment onwards to work hard to organise goodwill committees in the various villages, irrespective of political Parties, so that all the people who live in this country could work hard to bring about goodwill among all communities who live together in this country." So, Mr Speaker, it is clear from that speech made in the General Assembly of U.M.N.O., which was attended by 100 per cent Malay members, that we were asked to keep communal feelings away. But in Singapore, the people still have their suspicions and doubts about the intentions of U.M.N.O., both here and in the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, by the grace of God, it is fortunate that the Tunku has now become the leader to replace Dato Onn. But, Mr Speaker, if Dato Onn -

Let us not go into details of that nature, introducing personalities, which really do not affect the merger issue.

(In Malay): So, Mr Speaker, I feel it is fortunate that we have as our leader someone who is keen to see that we and the Federation come closer together, because if it is any other leader, the position that will befall Singapore and the people therein will be a lot worse for the people who are of various communities. Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Member for Anson is not here, I do not want him to show that he is a good Red Indian. We do not belong to such tribes and we are not a community that is fond of clashes. But we would like to tell the hon. Member for Anson that he seems to doubt the existence of Communist elements. He would like to know how many Communists there are in Singapore. The Government was keen to assist him with information although it was of a secret nature. I hope the Member for Home Affairs could give clarification. If there are Communists and there are elements which are pro-Communist in Singapore, these Communists and pseudo-Communists have not only have grand-children and great-grand-children in this country. In other words, they have been here for many generations. So I hope the Member for Anson bears this in mind. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I do not touch upon what has been said by one of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, then I feel I will die like the Member for Geylang Serai will die and the Member for the Southern Islands will die, without a grave. I say we will have our graves here in our own soil. We cannot accept what has been stated by the Barisan Sosialis who regard Singapore as a Chinese State. They liken Singapore to Manchuria. I am sure you yourself will not agree to that, Mr Speaker, Sir,If you agree, Sir, then surely this matter will be -

The hon. Member should not drag the Speaker into this argument. Whether the Speaker agrees or not is something which he will not admit.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg your pardon. I do not want to drag you into the political arena. What I would like to say has a bearing on the allegation that Malays originated from Indonesia. Mr Speaker, if Singapore had come under the British a little later, I am sure Singapore would have been one of the territories under independent Indonesia. Do they like to be treated like people who are not sons of the soil of Indonesia were treated? The Chinese here should be grateful to us, particularly to the Malays who are comprising by nature and who cherish peace and tranquility. Let them not revert to the history of China, likening Singapore to Manchuria, and saying that Singapore is being sold to the Federation of Malaya, because this is something which will not be accepted by any Malay who is a son of the soil. The Member for Queenstown himself has stated that people are physically the same, but that it is only the texture of their skin that is different. If he believes in that, then the time has not come when he can colour the opinion of the Malays. 7.17 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis are 13 in number today and the Government are 26. May I ask the Barisan Sosialis why not even a single Malay in the P.A.P. has defected to the Barisan Sosialis? Perhaps it is because -

They are probably Communists.

(In Malay): - they are Communists. Perhaps this is an apt explanation. The Malays in the P.A.P. cannot accept Communism in spite of the fact that they are non-Communists. So it is evident and clear that it is the intention of the Communists to make Singapore a Communist colony. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to say that if language reflects a nation, then henceforth let us demonstrate that we are going to build a common nationality within Malaysia and let us not turn our fatherland into a satellite of Moscow or Peking. 7.20 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queens-town went to great lengths to put forward the Barisan Sosialis' view that we should either have full merger or no merger at all. Stripped of all the verbiage, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Barisan Sosialis do not want merger and that their amendment is just one of those tactics to confuse the issue. Sir, the Member for Queenstown spoke with derision regarding the vacant seats in the ranks of the Government Party. May I remind him of two things? Although we are 26, we are strong enough. The Government relies more on quality than quantity, and we do not require men of no political principles to make up quantity. These seats have been vacated because of treacherous and ambitious men who plotted the overthrow of the Government during the Anson by-election. Sir, these men plotted against and betrayed the P.A.P. because they were promised high positions. They were led into believing that they would become Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers overnight. When the plot to capture the Government failed, these 13 Assemblymen found themselves trapped by their own opportunistic ambitions. Now in their despair, they are resorting to acrimonious accusations and wild statements against the Government. Sir, the Member for Queenstown has challenged the Government to resign, and so have the lesser luminaries of the Barisan Sosialis. May I remind them that they are speaking out of turn and have taken too many things for granted? All the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen should sincerely re-examine their own position before they challenge the Government. Sir, were these people not returned by the voters because they stood as P.A.P. candidates on the P.A.P. platform? Now that they have so treacherously defected, can they still say that they have a mandate from the people? Should it not be proper that they resign their seats to seek a fresh mandate from the people instead of arrogating to themselves the role of the champions of the people? The Barisan Sosialis accuse the Government of selling out the people of Singapore. They do not, however, indicate how this sell-out comes about. They cannot deny that the Government Party has tried, in the negotiations with the Federation, to secure a merger which provides every safeguard for our citizens. They cannot be unaware of the promise that with merger no Singapore citizen will be worse off. The Barisan Sosialis fear merger and they do not want it to come about. But, Sir, they dare not go against the aspirations of the people. They know that the people of Singapore want merger. They therefore try their best to confuse the issue by insisting on what they call full merger. They have changed their stand more than once during the last few months. At the Anson by-election, their call was for full internal self-government and the abolition of the Internal Security Council. This demand is a sell-out because these champions of anti-colonialism would rather live in a colony under British rule than to be free. Later, they supported the P.A.P. request for merger, retaining autonomy in matters of education and labour. They calculated that the Federation of Malaya was not likely to accept Singapore. Unfortunately for them, their surmise was wrong and the Government was successful in its negotiations for merger on a special basis. Now the Barisan Sosialis want full merger. Surely they under-rate the intelligence of the people if they think that the people do not realise what practical issues are involved. They forget that besides education and labour policies as well as our peculiar entrepot economy, there are other fields such as social welfare services, housing, industrial development and the provision of employment opportunities for a fast growing population, and so on, the problems relating to which are peculiar to Singapore and would best be dealt with on a State rather than on a Federal basis. The Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen belaboured the point that with merger the 624,000 Singapore citizens would not be able to vote in the Federation, and, this being so, they would become second-class citizens. They do not look at the practical side of the problem and consider the fact that only a limited number of people in Singapore are likely to want to vote outside Singapore and that more people come to Singapore from the Federation than those going away from Singapore. The only adverse effect is that politicians discredited in Singapore cannot look for new constituencies in the Federation. Surely, they are making a mountain out of a molehill about this citizenship issue. For the Member for Queenstown to wax eloquent on the issue of citizenship when only a few weeks ago he betrayed his ignorance of the subject at a radio forum is surely straining our credulity. It can only show that he is little more than a mouthpiece - His Master's Voice in Hi-Fi. Unfortunately, it is true that puppets seldom realise that they are being played for suckers. Sir, history abounds with thousands of cases where stooges and puppets and collaborators have on the success of their master's schemes been eliminated, liquidated or laid to rest in unknown graves once their usefulness has run out. These aspiring to be Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers who are prepared to be manipulated will find that when their usefulness comes to an end, they are the ones who will be relegated to oblivion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is possible to take the extreme view and say that unless we are in every respect treated exactly the same as all the constituent parts of the parent body, we have not been merged. It is also possible to say that as long as we have a voice in policy making by the parent body, we have become a constituent part and have therefore merged. Between these two extremes, any association or relationship is merger. It must, therefore, be' contended that when Singapore has 15 representatives in a House of about 100 Members who decide common policy, Singapore is part of the Federation and there is true merger. The debate in the last few days has brought up the fact that the Barisan Sosialis, having failed to overthrow the Government in their abortive plot after the Anson by-election and having made a series of blunders in miscalculating the speed of the merger negotiations, are now in an untenable position - that they do not want merger and yet dare not say so. We cannot believe that the Barisan Sosialis do not know that they have made a blunder. What we know is that they have not the political honesty to admit it. They prefer to render lip service to the request for merger, but to make their demands such that no merger will be possible. These are worn-out tactics by now, and they do ring hollow in our ears. The Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen do not or will not face the fact but keep on repeating such catch-phrases as "full merger or no merger", or "automatic citizenship", "second-class citizens", and so on, without realising their true meanings and implications. So much more is it a pity, because even other Opposition Members credit them with some intelligence. They accuse the Government of perpetrating a sell-out when all along the Government has tried to work honesty for the benefit of the majority of the people. It may be true that certain people, who are political risks, may find that with merger the liberties which they now enjoy under the benevolent P.A.P. Government will be drastically curtailed, but surely the aspirations of the people should not be held up because of these few. Sir, I oppose the amendment to the motion because it is unrealistic at this stage to demand of the Federation the type of merger proposed by the Barisan Sosialis. It is also unrealistic in view of Singapore's special position which I mentioned earlier, and of the education and labour policies as well as our peculiar enterpot economy, our social services and our attempts at industrial development for the provision of more jobs for our people. I must emphasise that with the merger as proposed by the P.A.P. Government, every Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy the same rights and privileges that he now enjoys. In addition, he will be able to stand for election in Singapore to be a Member of the Federal Parliament. Every Singapore citizen will be able to exercise his vote, to determine as to who should be his representative in the Federal Parliament. With the P.A.P. merger. Federation policies on education and labour will not affect us. We will continue to strive for industrial peace-with justice and to create a more just and equal society. The policy of equal treatment for the four language streams of education will carry on. There will still be all the opportunities for parents to send their children to Chinese, Tamil, Malay or English schools of their choice. Chinese education will continue to flourish with the continuance of Chinese as the medium of instruction in our secondary and higher educational, institutions. Those who are educated in Malay, Chinese or Tamil would be given opportunities for employment in the public services, and our public services will not be affected by the Federation 4:1 ratio policy. 7.37 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, we the Barisan Sosialis have proposed this amendment through the Member for Queenstown. In the debate these few days we have clearly proved that our amendment is justified. This is particularly true when the Ministers and P.A.P. Assemblymen could not answer the questions raised by us. It clearly shows that the merger proposed by the leadership of the P.A.P. is a kind of phoney merger, and our amendment is proof of it. The discredited leadership of the P.A.P. should rise up to face the people and seek a new mandate from them, so that the people could make a new decision. We have heard the Minister for National Development say just now that we, the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen, contested the 1959 general elections in the name of the P.A.P. That is quite true. But in those days we were of the opinion that the P.A.P. principles met with the wishes of the people, and therefore the people elected the P.A.P. to form the government. My colleague, the Member for Havelock, has replied on this point, and you cannot say that we now oppose the principles of the P.A.P. But the leadership of the P.A.P. have forgotten their own promises made in 1959. We have been trying to seek the true principles but the ruling clique of the P.A.P. do not want to discuss all these questions in a democratic way. Instead they have resorted to dictatorial ways, and that is why today 13 of us are sitting here under the style of "Barisan Sosialis". We have not betrayed any election promises made in 1959. We the Barisan Sosialis are ready to face the people at any time any place, if the P.A.P. Assemblymen are as honest and courageous as we are, then they should be prepared to face the people at any time in order to let the people make a new decision. The question of merger is a national issue. It can also be said to have a very important bearing on the people of Singapore as well as the people in the Federation of Malaya. It cannot be made an issue pertaining to the P.A.P. alone. It is not a partisan issue peculiar to any Party or group of persons. It is not an issue which can be resolved by only a group of people or a political Party alone. Our view is this. Merger between the two territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya should be decided by the people in both territories, and it should not be carried out in the manner that the Prime Minister has done - by secretly going to the Federation to negotiate and to try to get his type of merger without consulting the people of Singapore, and then come back to tell the people that merger is now in view. The people of Singapore, especially the political Parties and all trade unionists, have given many constructive views on this question. Our Prime Minister has entirely ignored all these views and opinions. From this, we can come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is dictatorial and is not democratic in his way of dealing with the problem of merger. The reason for merger between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore is that in the past the two territories were under the rule of colonialists. They ruled over these two territories with a divide and rule policy, as a result of which the two territories are divided. That is why today we demand the reunification of the two territories and seek a reunification of the people of these two territories. Therefore, in this respect this demand should meet with the wishes of the people in these two territories. The true way to achieve merger should be on an equal, just and reasonable basis. It should meet with the true wishes and interests of the two territories and with the true wishes of the people of the two territories. But our Prime Minister has not done so. Whenever he managed to have some kind of deal with the Federation Government, he would return to Singapore and make use of the radio and the newspapers to talk about his phoney merger. This undemocratic way of handling this matter cannot be allowed by, the people of Singapore. Since the Prime Minister put forward this phoney merger proposal, the people of Singapore have clearly seen through what this merger means. The eyes of the people are bright and discerning. The people have come to know clearly the kind of merger that is proposed by the Prime Minister. In order to resuscitate their moribund and declining political fortunes and position, our sophisticated Prime Minister and several of his colleagues have continued to issue all kinds of saying and pretexts. But from these declarations and speeches, the people can still see that they are contradicting themselves. The Minister for Finance has said in this Assembly during the present series of sittings that the Member for Queens-town has raised this point, namely, that under Article 22 of the Federation Constitution, the constitutional points with regard to the future status and political rights of the people can be determined. The Minister for Finance says that this is wrong. He also says that the Prime Minister of the Federation does not like to accept the citizens of Singapore because there are Communists in Singapore. This is the reason given by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. We regret the way he talked and argued. According to information given by Intelligence to the Prime Minister, there are only about 300 Communists in Singapore. But under the present arrangements for merger, there will be about 320,000 citizens of Singapore who will not have any right to apply for Federal citizenship. This argument does not hold water. It is groundless. We have also heard from the Minister for Health and Law during this present series of sittings in this Assembly. He quoted from documents and law books to show that, according to the present Federation law, the citizens of Singapore cannot automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya on Merger Day. Is this not in conflict with what the Minister for Finance has stated? Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Culture said in this House that we were not sincere in asking for automatic conversion of citizens of Singapore to Federal citizens on Merger Day. He said that this request would not be acceptable to the Federation Government. At the same time, he criticised us for bringing up this amendment. He further said that because of this we the Barisan Sosialis are a communal Party. He even accused us of being birds of the same feather with the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party in the Federation. What is his motive for making such an accusation against us? Just now the Member for Havelock has refuted him in a very concrete way. The object of the Minister is merely to confuse the true nature of our amendment. He only wants to continue to bamboozle the people of Singapore. At the same time, he hopes that the people of Singapore will not continue to seek their basic democratic rights. We the Barisan Sosialis have proposed a genuine merger of the two territories. This is based on the equality of rights of the people of the two territories. It is to achieve a united nation so that the people can share a common political life. When this kind of merger is achieved, they can enjoy the same equal rights. Why did the Minister for Culture want to level criticisms against us? His argument cannot be accepted by anyone. His accusation only reflects the fact that he himself is communalistic. Mr Deputy Speaker, we want to tell the Minister for Culture that since the Barisan Sosialis' inception up till now, our stand, views and policies have all along be clear-cut. Just now my colleague has read out our stand. So it is not necessary for me to reiterate it. We are true socialists. We are working along the true path towards the building of a socialist country. We are not like the leadership of the P.A.P. In name, they claim to be Left-wing socialists, but, in fact, they are compromising with opportunistic Right-wing elements. On the question of merger between the two territories, we have noted clearly that this is actually a phoney merger proposed by the P.A.P. But our Prime Minister insists on telling the people that it is a true merger. Our very clever Prime Minister is trying to sell dog's meat by showing a lamb's head when he tells the people that this is a true merger. But I want to tell the Prime Minister that the people of Singapore have bright discerning eyes. The people have gone through many actual experiences. Therefore, they are now able to see what is right and what is wrong, and to make out what is true merger and what is phoney merger. Last Friday, when the Member for Nee Soon was exposing the P.A.P. phoney merger in this House, he pointed out that the leadership of the P.A.P. had deviated from its Left-wing socialist stand. But our clever Prime Minister, our cunning Prime Minister, produced on that day correspondence between himself and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. But we know very well that the contents were out of date when he produced them. The contents related to nationality, citizenship and representation to the Federal Parliament. The Tunku had clearly given his answer to these few points at the Singapore Airport. Therefore, when the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya left for London, the Prime Minister of Singapore produced those letters. What was his motive? On Saturday there was no sitting of this House. Perhaps his intention was to have headlines spread over the newspaper's front page. About Article 22 of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya -

Order. Moment of interruption. Mr Rajaratnam.

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