Hansard, 1961-12-05

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my pleasure to inform hon. Members that after the motion* was carried by a majority vote at 11.45 p.m. last night, first condemning the pickets for their unreasonable action, and, second, sanctioning police protection for students who wish to take their examinations and for their parents who accompany them, there were no more pickets today in any of the examination centres. A total of 628 students took supplementary papers today for the second compulsory paper of the examination in Elementary Mathematics, making the total number of students who have taken the examinations 2,145 so far, i.e., 68 per cent. *The motion reads as follows: That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations, and in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be offered Police protection, hereby resolves that this House approves of any action according to law by the Government through the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls.

32 p.m.

Hon. Members will recollect that yesterday at 5.35 p.m., the Minister for Finance made a ministerial statement in regard to the Estimates for a vote on account and Development Estimates for 1963. I indicated that if hon. Members still think they do desire to have a debate on that statement, they could so indicate today and the Minister has, I think, undertaken to move that the Assembly do now adjourn in order that the debate may take place. Does any hon. Member now wish for a debate to take place on this statement? Hon. Members indicated dissent.

No? Then it is not necessary for the Minister to move.

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

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will continue my speech made last Friday. Unfortunately, this debate on an important question - merger - has been interrupted unnecessarily by -

Order. I do not think the hon. Member is justified in saying that the debate has been interrupted unnecessarily. It was quite an important motion that was debated the whole of yesterday.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I mean to say is this, that this question of merger is very important and should be clearly decided upon so as to show what kind of phoney merger the P.A.P. is trying to bring about to the people. We in the Barisan Sosialis, especially the Member for Queenstown, have indicated at the time of moving the amendment that the Prime Minister has already been exposed in bringing about a phoney merger. Several questions were raised but there was no reply whatsoever from the Government. The question of citizenship after merger and the significance of the so-called nationality have so far not been properly clarified by the Prime Minister to the people of Singapore. Furthermore, there has been a great deal of unnecessary issues and side issues on the nationality and citizenship problems to confuse the vision of the people. It was reported in the leading newspapers of this country - the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau - on the 26th and 27th of November that the State Advocate-General had stated the distinction between "citizenship" and "nationality". The State Advocate-General said that according to the merger proposed by the Prime Minister, the present citizens of Singapore and those in the Federation would be equally considered as nationals of the new Federation on Merger Day. That is to say, they will enjoy equal rights and privileges on Merger Day and will thereafter shoulder equal obligations and responsibilities without any distinction at all. Mr Speaker, Sir, the S.A.G.'s explanation of nationality is correct. We can see that this question of nationality has a meaning only as far as foreign countries are concerned, but from the newspaper report of the 26th November, we also read a statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office pinpointing the opinion given by the S.A.G. In this statement, it is stated that whether a person is called a Federation national or citizen, he has no addition to or subtraction of his rights. What is the meaning of the statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office? I think it is nothing but to confuse the views of the people in regard to nationality and citizenship. If this merger arrangement materialises, I would like to know whether the local citizens in Singapore would be able to have a common political life with those in the Federation. Would it also mean that according to the merger arrangement made by the Prime Minister, the unemployed citizens in Singapore would be able to get employment in the Federation? There is another question, that is, after merger, will the Federation Government treat Singapore citizens without any discrimination whatsoever? From this Statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office, we can see that a citizen is usually considered to be a person enjoying certain rights within his own country, and the question of nationality is only applicable to the status of a person in the international field. So from this paragraph we can see clearly that the so-called nationality is only applicable to foreign countries, and this so-called equal status of citizens is only applicable to our own country alone. Therefore, we can see that there is a distinction between citizenship and nationality. This distinction is not inexplicable. Then why should the Prime Minister have to give radio talks and press conferences on several occasions regarding this question? In spite of all talks by the Prime Minister, the people of Singapore have not understood what he is trying to drive at. So it is obvious that our Prime Minister is not being frank and honest. He is afraid that the people will easily discover that his merger is a phoney one. Whenever the Prime Minister has occasion to talk about citizenship and nationality, he usually tries to be very evasive and talks about unimportant things in order to cover up his phoney merger which is a sell-out. As a result of this, he has had to give directions to the State Advocate-General to prepare a statement in regard to the nationality and citizenship questions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the phoney merger arrangement made by the Prime Minister will bring about three different classes of citizens. The first are those Federal citizens who have absolute control in the Parliament. The second are those Singapore citizens who are eligible to elect representatives to the Central Parliament in the Federation. The third are those citizens not born in Singapore and are not eligible to apply for Federal citizenship. This last type of citizens will not be able to take part in national affairs although they have to carry out whatever resolutions are passed by the Central Parliament. Therefore, according to the phoney merger of the Prime Minister, we can see that there is no true merger or a reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. As a matter of fact, our Prime Minister is trying to come to a compromise with the Federation to sell out Singapore. 2.49 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate on merger has already entered the 11th day in this House and the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, that is, the Member for Queenstown, has given in his seven-hour speech his analysis of the phoney merger of the P.A.P. leadership. According to his analysis, this phoney merger is a sell-out of the interests of the people of Singapore. He has also stated clearly the stand of our Party which is to bring about a true merger between Singapore and the Federation in order to achieve a reunification of the two territories. Singapore will enter the Federation as a twelfth State and all citizens of Singapore Swill automatically become Federal citizens on Merger Day. A proportionate number of representatives in relation to the number of citizens can be elected to the Central Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the so-called merger of the P.A.P. has been recognised as a phoney merger which is a sell-out. The P.A.P. leadership -

On a point of order. So far the speech of the Member for Serangoon Gardens has been a repetition of what the previous speaker said. Can we not get some fresh ideas from the Barisan Sosialis?

I am inclined to agree with that point of view. There has been repetition but fortunately it is not a late hour. The repetition has not been tedious. Mr Leong.

(In Mandarin): Why should the P.A.P. leadership want to bring about this phoney merger? I think they want to try to save themselves from their precarious position. What will the phoney merger of the P.A.P. bring to the people of Singapore? It will bring to them the loss of citizenship rights. In the true merger as proposed by the Barisan Sosialis, the people of the two territories will be better able to enjoy a common political life with equal citizenship rights so that they will be able to have a political reunification. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me explain clearly that the P.A.P. is trying to bring about this phoney merger to save themselves from their difficult position. We all remember that in 1959, the P.A.P. -

Sir, on a point of order. We have heard about the 1959 elections and so on. All this is just a repetition of previous speeches.

The Minister can be quite assured that I have my sympathies for him and for Members of this Assembly, and I trust he has his sympathies for me as well. I think the hon. Member could still carry on a little while more to see whether he can try my patience.

(In Mandarin): In the last general elections, the P.A.P. got the full support of the people because they were toeing the line of the people. Now they are discarded by the people because they have gone against their Party platform and they have disregarded the opinion of the people. Their number has been reduced from 43 to 26 in this House, which means that they have a majority of only one seat. So now nobody can be sure whether any of the Back-Benchers might not come over to this side of the House after examining their conscience and listening to the criticisms of the people. The P.A.P. leadership realise the expansion of the Left-wing forces in both Singapore and the Federation. In Singapore especially, the new socialist forces have become quite formidable, so that the P.A.P. leadership have now to resort to mean methods to save themselves from their precarious position. They try to get the support of the S.P.A. in this House. They, want to co-operate with a Right-wing figure, namely, the Member for Cairnhill, so that they can stand together. During the debate in this House, they have expressed almost the same views. From this, it is very clear that the P.A.P. is going to the Right. Outside this Assembly, they are making use of the radio and the newspapers to disseminate fear by branding some persons as Communists in order that the people will not have the guts to go against them. They are trying to distract the attention of the people so that they can bring about their phoney merger which is a sell-out of the interests of the people of Singapore. So they are trying to save themselves at the expense of others. The P.A.P. leadership have even gone to the extent of splitting unions and brought politics into the unions. They are trying to create suspicion among the races. They are trying to gain the support of the English-educated so that they can perpetuate their divide-and-rule policy. Apart from all this, the P.A.P. leadership have, in fact, begged for assistance from the Federation in order to save themselves from their present predicament. Mr Speaker, Sir, the so called phoney merger of the P.A.P. is nothing but a sort of association between Singapore and the Federation on the basis of a partnership.

Order. Does the hon. Member agree with me that that statement, "The so-called phoney merger of the P.A.P. is nothing but a sort of association" between the two countries has, in fact, been used by Members of the Barisan Sosialis perhaps about ten times? I would like an answer because I do not want it to be said that I have misheard the speakers. I would like to know whether I am right in my estimation of the repetition that has occurred in this debate. Am I right?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just trying to go over this simply.

Order. I think the Member does agree that there has been a repetition of that phrase time and again. So if he does agree, then perhaps when he continues his speech, he will try not to repeat other phrases.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what will the phoney merger of the P.A.P. bring to the people of Singapore? The P.A.P. is trying to disregard the objective of the people of Singapore in their struggle for citizenship since 1946. The P.A.P. even goes to the extent of lowering the status of Singapore citizens to one of second-class citizenship. If the phoney merger of the P.A.P. materialises, then Singapore citizens will be classified into three types. The first type will be those who are Federal citizens the second type will be Singapore citizens who were born here, and the third type will be Singapore citizens who were not born here but -

Point of order, Sir.

The point of order being?

He is repeating exactly the words of the previous speaker - three classes of citizens. Why all this repetition?

May I suggest to the Minister to be a bit more patient, and try to emulate the Speaker perhaps?

Very well, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that because Singapore citizens cannot become Federal citizens automatically, the number of representatives elected to the Central Government will not be proportionate to the number of citizens. Originally Singapore was entitled to 25 seats. This number has now been reduced to 15. Therefore, the Singapore representatives in the Central Parliament will not have adequate strength to speak for the people of Singapore. Singapore citizens, because of the loss of citizenship -

Point of information, Sir.

(In Mandarin): The workers in Singapore - An hon. Member: Coward!

Order. Did I hear the word "coward" being used by an hon. Member? I am afraid I do not know who said that word, but if the hon. Member used the word "coward" of another Member of this Assembly, then, of course, that is wrong. It is unparliamentary.

(In Mandarin): The workers in Singapore will not be able to seek employment in the Federation. So the question of unemployment will not be solved. The farmers in Singapore will not be able to get allocations of land in the Federation. The businessmen in Singapore, because of the loss of citizenship, will not be able to have equal opportunities of doing business in the Federation. Graduates of Singapore schools, because of the lack of proper citizenship rights, will not be able to apply for admission to the civil service in the Federation. Can we retain the so-called autonomy forever? Or is this a question yet to be answered by the Central Government, as it is the supreme authority in deciding policies? One quarter of the revenue of Singapore, namely, $90 million, has got to be paid to the Federal Parliament. And in order to cover up the deficit, the Government here may have to increase taxes. In the end, the lives of the people of Singapore will be more difficult. The third point is that we want to have a true merger. We in the Barisan Sosialis endorse true merger, so that Singapore citizens will be able to become automatically Federal citizens and so that representatives can be elected from among Singapore citizens, the number to be in proportion to the number of its citizens. Singapore citizens will be able to stand for election on a national basis, including election to the Federal Parliament and the State Assembly. In this way, there will be a strong force from the representatives of the people of Singapore, and we will be able to amend unreasonable legislation. In this way also, workers, farmers, businessmen and the produce of Singapore citizens will be enjoying a better life because they have Federal citizenship. And in this way too, the peoples of the two territories will be able to enjoy common citizenship rights and lead a common political life. Finally, we want to distinguish between the advantages and disadvantages of merger. We must ascertain the opinion of the people whether merger is advantageous or disadvantageous, and what kind of merger we must have. This question should be decided by the one man one vote method. Who should represent the people of Singapore in the talks on merger between the Federation and Singapore? Well, we can have a general election to answer this question. Therefore, I am in full support of the amendment tabled by our Party Chairman, who is the Member for Queenstown. In this amendment, we want to seek a genuine merger. 3.09 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Assembly has been debating for over two weeks the question of supporting in principle the merger of the two territories, and the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown. I do not want to waste any more time of the Assembly over the same question, as my colleagues have replied to the criticisms by the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. But there are several points which I feel I must bring out for emphasis. These points have already been emphasised by several Assemblymen in this House. What are these? Since the debate began, several speakers have stressed that the interests of the people must come first, that we must always listen to the people, and that the interests of the Party should come next. This is correct, of course. My colleagues and I entirely agree with this point. And because of this, the present political situation in Singapore has come about. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say this: if we are not carrying on in the interests of the people, then our Party will be broken up. But we are acting in the interests of the people and trying to fulfil our promises to them. Therefore, we are not worried about the activities of the opponent political Parties. This is the essence of democracy. Since the question of merger was raised, the public and newspaper editorials have given their opinions. They have all said that it is inevitable that there will finally be merger. It is only a question of time. The coming of merger is just like the sun rising from the east, and the water flowing into the sea. This is a natural course, and is also a natural law. Nobody can change this course. If anybody wants to cover up this truth by tactics and manoeuvring, he is only ignoring the tide of the present era, which is impossible. I have already pointed out that all this is natural law. And so as the sun will, of course, rise from the east, it will set when the time comes. That cannot be changed. Mr Speaker, Sir, since many Assemblymen have already emphasised the importance of the livelihood of the people, may I stress further by asking whether merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya is also one of the questions relating to the livelihood of the people of Singapore? In my opinion, it is so. It concerns very much the livelihood of the people. The Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis have talked about many things, amongst them, socialism. May I say that in my view, as Singapore is a small island of 225 square miles and without natural resources, it will find it difficult to realise socialism by itself? That is why we have to seek a merger of the two territories in order to realise socialism. After the reunification of the two territories, socialism can be achieved in Singapore. Otherwise, all talks and plans are only mere words on paper, and are without any effect. The population of Singapore keeps on increasing. Can all these talks help to solve the acute problems facing us today in Singapore? We feel we cannot achieve certain aims or realise certain objectives by just delivering empty talks or writing thesis. We can only achieve our objectives through concrete work and practical planning. I want to point out further that it is because we stress the importance of placing the interest of the people above the interest of the Party that we are not willing to do the things that the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have done. They are acting like clowns in their attempt to confuse the vision of the people. Mr Speaker, I want to answer also some of the charges made by the Barisan Sosialis. They have stressed several points during these few days. I want, to reply to the charges they have levelled against us. My colleagues have already given their replies to some of them and there is no need for me to repeat them. But I feel it is necessary for me to point out some of the other charges. In the course of the debate during these few days, they have repeatedly accused us of selling out the rights of the people of Singapore by this merger. Let us define the words "sell-out". We recognise the fact that the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation of Malaya are brothers. They have been separated for 16 years by artificial means. How can this reunification be considered as a kind of sell-out? To sell out means to sell what belongs to us to someone else. But since the Federation of Malaya is our sister State, how can we say that we are selling ourselves to the Federation of Malaya? Since the people of the Federation of Malaya are like our brothers, we are of the same family. Therefore, now is the time for us to unite together. How can an act which brings about the reunification of the two territories be termed as a sell-out? I hope other Assemblymen in this House will give a further definition of the word "sell-out". Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to reiterate that at the inauguration of our Party sometime ago, the reunification of the two territories was one of our objectives. We have been working hard since then to realise this objective. In other words, we have been working hard to fulfil the hope of the people of Singapore. This is also the fulfilment of one of our promises to the people. The people elected us to this Assembly in the hope that we can bring about a better life for them. As representatives of the people, we have to respect their views, wishes and hopes. But when we respect the views and wishes of the people by acting accordingly, our friends in the Barisan Sosialis accuse us of turning Right. If this is their kind of logic, then I think the definition of words in the dictionary should be changed. In these few days, Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis have incessantly accused us of trying to push through this merger in order to safeguard our political position. My colleagues and I can say here categorically that we do not form the Government just for our own benefit. We have been conducting the business of government in the interest of the people. It is for this reason that we are now in the Government. We are now faced with many difficulties and problems. Why should we endure all this? Our efforts and our work are only to benefit the people and to give them a better life. We are doing all his, and not just to preserve our power as they have been saying. I feel that they are not interested in the livelihood of the people. We have been elected as representatives of the people. But what have we gained during all this period, Mr Speaker? You know that we have spent much time and energy - Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein) rose -

Is it on a point of order?

(In Mandarin): Yes. Just now we have heard the Member for Jurong saying that his coming into this Assembly is to act on behalf of the people. Of course, as representative of the people he has to do that.

Order. Perhaps the hon. Member does not know the meaning of a point of order. That is an argument. The Member for Moulmein has not spoken. He will have an opportunity of answering that argument.

(In Mandarin): Just as the Member for Moulmein has said, as representatives of the people, we are not carrying out our work just to fulfil our own wishes and hopes. Instead, we are working for the benefit of the people and to fulfil their wishes and hopes. That is why we have spent so much time and energy to achieve this aim. During these few days of debate, you can read from the newspapers that the situation in Singapore, especially the political situation, is fluctuating. There are ups and downs. Why is this so? I think we can all understand this. We will exert ourselves and try to do whatever we can. That is to say, we must have a good beginning and we must have a good end. We will carry on with our work in accordance with the principles in which we believe. We will not act like our accusers. Mr Speaker, for several days we have been debating the question of citizenship rights without any conclusion. We have all along emphasised the question of citizenship. The Barisan Sosialis is advocating a merger like that of Penang and Malacca. We have already said - and it is reported in the newspapers - that if we were to merge with the Federation of Malaya as the twelfth state on the basis of Penang and Malacca, then those citizens of Singapore who were not born in Singapore would have to apply again for Federal citizenship. This will be a loss to the citizens of Singapore. This is also unfair.

Order. I think that is a repetition of an argument which has been advanced by the Government benchers time and again.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was only quoting a very short passage. The reason is that the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have all along said that the people are very concerned with the question of citizenship. That is why the Assembly has been debating this question for so many days. This is one of the reasons. Why is there such a heated debate on this question? Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not want to act like the Members of the Barisan Sosialis who, by their arguments, have advocated many fanciful plans. We are practical. Singapore and the Federation of Malaya have been separated for 16 years. We must now seek the reunification of the two territories in order to bring a better life to our people. Only through merger can we bring better opportunities and better rights to the people of these two territories. My colleagues have also touched on several of these points and I do not want to repeat them. But there is one point I want to stress, and that is that we have never been conceited or self-complacent. We are practical men. We dare not say that in a short period of a few years we can improve the livelihood of the people. We can only say that we want to try and achieve that. But if merger of the two territories can come sooner, then this will help greatly towards achieving this end. Mr Speaker, Sir, I resolutely oppose the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown. I feel that this amendment is unnecessary and, as I have pointed out, it is only a sugar-coating which has, in fact, no true meaning. 3.32 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this important question about the Singapore people has been debated for several days. Originally, I did not have the intention to participate in the debate, but being a representative of the people, I cannot shut my mouth on this important issue about the people of Singapore. If I do not speak a few words, then I will not be doing justice to the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have constantly heard of the sell-out merger and the genuine merger. I will try in this House to speak on this question. Some people have said that the P.A.P. have sold out the interests of the people of Singapore. But one of them has said, "How can the P.A.P. Government sell out the interests of the people? If we were children, it might be possible for them to sell us; but we are adults, so how can they sell us?" The people of Singapore cannot become Federal citizens under this definition. This can be termed as a sell-out. Singapore has to contribute $90 million to the Federation of Malaya. This, of course, can be justly said to be a sell-out, since we are giving up our money to them. From where then can we get taxes to replace this sum? Of course, the taxes will have to come from the people themselves. In other words, before merger, the Government has raised taxes by 100 per cent. But if after merger, the Government has to give $90 million to the Federation of Malaya, then that means that the Government of Singapore will have to spend more. It will therefore have to increase taxes. Perhaps there will be a 200 per cent increase. The separation of Singapore from Malaya was created by the colonial masters. However, the heroic people of Singapore have been resolutely against colonialism. They have fought for independence and the reunification of the two territories. The inauguration platform of the P.A.P. in 1954 was able to meet the demands of the majority of the people. Therefore, the P.A.P. was voted into office with the support of the people. However, before long, they changed their quality, and worse still now, they have given orders, like an emperor on the throne, in order to create widespread terror. They have completely forgotten their promises. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that under colonial rule and dictatorship, the people are oppressed by military forces and fooled by culture. The political rights of the people have been exploited. The political concept of the governed all over the world has been raised to a considerable extent. In every corner of the world, the voices of anti-colonialism have been heard constantly fighting for freedom and democracy. Now, the P.A.P. leadership have tried to use a phoney method to reach the objective of selling out the interests of the people of Singapore. You have noted the Prime Minister's remark that if Singapore does not merge with the Federation of Malaya, then the Federation Government will cut off its water supply and Singapore will be finished. Now, the P.A.P. Government, coming on the heels of the Prime Minister's remark, have announced that the water level in the reservoirs is low and there is not enough water for consumption. They have now imposed water rationing, causing inconvenience to the people. However, during this rainy season, the water level must be quite high and yet the Government is still imposing water rationing -

Order. We are dealing with merger. What has the fact that we have rainfall or no rainfall got to do with merger?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only use this point of argument to substantiate the fact that the P.A.P. Government is cheating the people. Just a short passage -

I think that short passage is a bit too long.

(In Mandarin): Well then, I will try my best. Today the water level has risen, but still there is this water rationing -

Order. I do not think we should debate water rationing now. Let us go on to the merger motion.

(In Mandarin): All right then, and thank you very much. I will bow to your ruling. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just said that the P.A.P. are now trying all kinds of tactics and resorting to all kinds of means to deceive the people. This is contrary to democratic progress and the aim of a true merger. The colonialists in Singapore and the general masses have, in the past, acquired a three-quarters Merdeka for Singapore, but now this three-quarters Merdeka is not sufficient to resolve the problems of the people. Therefore, the people of Singapore will have to continue with their anti-colonial struggle to realise the reunification of all the people of Singapore and Malaya. The leadership of the P.A.P. say that since there is no longer colonialism in Singapore, then everything can be resolved by this so-called merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. But, Mr Speaker, if the merger proposed by the P.A.P. is a true merger and is wanted by the people in both territories, then, of course, it can be a merger. But is this so? The Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya said clearly in the Federal Parliament that what he wanted was not a true merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Singapore was only accepted as a partner and the citizens of Singapore could not become citizens of the Federation. Everybody knows that if the citizens are separated, then the people cannot become one and the country cannot be united. The people living in this divided country and with separate citizenship will be just like a bird in a cage that will be manipulated by the master. This is a true fact which everybody can see clearly. People without citizenship rights cannot do anything. The fundamental principle of merger should be that the two territories should be reunited, with the people in the two territories enjoying equal citizenship rights and sharing a common political life. But the Prime Minister has talked at length on various problems such as autonomy in labour and education. I would say that without citizenship rights all these autonomies are useless and are only something to deceive the people. Without true merger, true unification and equal citizenship rights, all the problems of the people cannot be resolved. The labour policy of the P.A.P. is not so very progressive as it is claimed to be. The workers of Singapore have gained very good working conditions through their own efforts and not because of the work of the P.A.P. They have gained very advantageous working conditions because of their own efforts and because of the co-operation of certain employers. This is not the result of the so-called pro-labour policy of the Government. We can see how the P.A.P. is exposed in the present situation involving students. This shows that its education policy is not as sound as it claims to be. This merger question brought up by the P.A.P. is being used only as a smokescreen to blind the vision of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker. Sir, the people of Singapore are not absentminded. During the by-election in Anson, there was a promise made by the P.A.P. that we would achieve independence through merger. What was the result? The people in Anson lost confidence in the P.A.P. So the beautiful promise made by the P.A.P. did not get the support of the people. So the Party which has lost the confidence of the people has been shown for what it is, and yet it is still trying to cling to power. The P.A.P. Government is trying to play political tricks to deceive the people and to influence their political life. Is this the intention of the P.A.P.? If this is not so, then why should the opinion of the people be disregarded, and why should the P.A.P. try to force through a merger in spite of the fact that the people are not in favour of that type of merger? Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government has lost the confidence of the people, then the people have the right to doubt the proposals brought forward by the Government, especially in regard to the proposals affecting their livelihood. They will not let these proposals pass so easily. They will want to ask for an explanation from the Government, and they will raise criticisms on the question concerned. In the last few months, they have been very unhappy about the talks going on behind the scenes between the P.A.P. Government and the Federation. This has raised doubts in their minds. The details of these talks concerning merger have not been disclosed and made public. In fact, they should not be kept secret. The people have a right to know what has been going on. The P.A.P. Government are trying to keep the terms of the merger a secret. Maybe they have something which they do not want to disclose to the people. So the people have every right to suspect them. Formerly, the Lim Yew Hock Government sold Christmas Island. So the people think that the minority in the P.A.P. leadership may be trying to sell the island of Singapore as well, because they are very secretive about things. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the course of this debate, we have unmasked the P.A.P. and we can now see its true appearance. The doubts and suspicions of the people have been very justified. The P.A.P.'s promise that we would achieve independence through merger has been proved to be false. What kind of merger is this? Is Singapore to go in as a State like Sarawak, Borneo and Brunei? These three territories can join the Federation as States, but it is not so in the case of Singapore. Singapore will only be considered as a partner. Strictly speaking, this is not compatible with an independent State. The P.A.P. merger is not conducive to the interests of the people of Singapore. In fact, this merger arrangement will place the people of Singapore on an unequal status with the people of the Federation, so that true independence for Singapore cannot be achieved. In fact, the P.A.P. is trying to make Singapore a satellite of the Federation. As I have said, the question of citizenship is of the utmost importance. How should this question of citizenship be solved? The P.A.P. Government has not aid anything about uniting the people if the two territories in a common citizenship. On the contrary, it is trying to separate Singapore citizens from Federation citizens. It is not trying to get automatic Federal citizenship rights tor the citizens of Singapore. So can we say that Singapore is an independent State if there are two types of citizens living in it? In the Nanyang Siang Pan of 20th July, the Prime Minister is reported to have said at a Press conference - over the radio - that the status of the citizens of Singapore may be on an unequal basis with that of the citizens of the Federation. He brought in Algeria and France as examples to substantiate his statement. He said that a person may be a citizen of Algeria, but it does not necessarily mean that he is also a citizen of France. Therefore, he can only tote within Algeria, but if he wants to vote in France he must first apply for French citizenship. This is what the Prime Minister said at a Press conference over Radio Singapore. We all know that Algeria is a colony of France and that its people are opposing the colonial rulers. They are struggling for independence. At present, France has sovereignty over Algeria and it is trying to keep Algeria as a colony. Therefore, there is no question at all that the people in Algeria are on an equal status with those in France. But in the case of Singapore which is trying to achieve independence through merger, there is every reason for Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens, otherwise the merger is not genuine and the status of Singapore can be likened to that of Algeria. Now the minority in the P.A.P. leadership undoubtedly agree that Singapore can automatically become Federal citizens. So it is up to the P.A.P. to fight for this citizenship right for the people of Singapore. In the Nanyang Siang Pau of 26th July, the Prime Minister is reported to have said at a Press conference that if the Opposition Parties in Singapore were in favour of automatic Federal citizenship rights for the citizens of Singapore, he would ask them to get in touch with their Federation friends to speak in the Central Parliament on this question so that Singapore citizens can automatically become Federal citizens. You can see that the Prime Minister has forgotten what he promised during the general elections of 1959. Why should he shirk his responsibility when he has already made a promise to fight for the interests of the people of Singapore? Why should he give the money of the people of Singapore so easily to the Federation? From this, we can see that the P.A.P. will do one thing and say another thing. In other words, their deeds and their words are entirely different. Now they have discovered that the people know that the question of citizenship is very important and that their rights are being sold out. Therefore, they have introduced a new term "Federal national" to console the people. They say that Singapore citizens will become Federal nationals on Merger Day. This method has been employed to explain away the non-existence of the equal status between the people in both territories. The use of such a legal term to deceive the people is not right. The Federation when dealing with court cases will treat you as Federal nationals, and you will be punished according to the law because you are Federal nationals. And when you are citizens, you will be treated likewise. In the case of passports, it will be the same. You will have a Federal passport and so you should be proud of it because you are not holding a British passport. But you will see that this equal treatment is the same in all independent States. But this is not enough to deceive the people. If there is equal status between the two peoples of both territories, then how is it that Singapore citizens cannot become Federal citizens after merger? Why should the Federation disallow Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens? So from this point we can again see that this is a phoney merger to deceive the people. Again we ask: how is it Singapore citizens can only vote in Singapore and not anywhere in the Federation? If there is equality between the two peoples, how is it that the election of representatives will not be in proportion to the number of citizens? Now we know that Singapore can only have 15 seats in the Federal Parliament. This means that some 200,000 Singapore citizens will he deprived of their citizenship rights. Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that merger between Singapore and the Federation is the desire of the people of both territories, and we believe that broad measures in Singapore and the Federation are good for the people. They can live together like brothers. There is no conflict of interests among them. They can live together in an independent State after merger. In this way, they will have fuller co-operation and will be united all the more if there is true merger, which is the desire of the people. This true merger will bring to the people of both territories a reunification of these territories and common rights, so that the people will be able to enjoy political rights with more freedom than the people of any other independent State in the world. Any Party in power should not act against the desire of the people by depriving them of their citizenship rights. If they should do so, then the people will be all the more dissatisfied. If the people are deprived of their economic rights, then they will be more dissatisfied. We must try to bring about the reunification of all races in both territories. In this way, we will have greater economic benefits, and there will be fuller co-operation between the two States in the field of industrialisation, and job opportunities will be created for the people of both territories. For example, if there is closer economic co-operation between the two States, then this co-operation will be conducive to the interests of both territories. Only those who are against the interests of the peoples of both territories are opposed to a genuine merger. So I am speaking in support of the amendment to the motion tabled by the Member for Queenstown.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what we have heard in the last two weeks are nothing but slogans, "sell-out", "losing the confidence of the people" and so on and so forth. I do not want to waste the time of the Assembly by dealing with this. They have been using all kinds of confusing terms to confuse the people. But before I reply to what they have said against us, let me tell a Malay story from the Sejarah Melayu. The hero in this story is the Sultan of Malacca who loved the Princess of Gunong Ledang. He asked for her hand, but the princess said that if the Sultan wanted to marry her, he should build for her a gold and silver bridge from Malacca to Gunong Ledang, and to provide seven dishes of the hearts of certain animals, a dish of deer, and a bowl of the blood of Rajah Ahmad, a son of the Sultan. "If you can do all this, then I promise to marry you." I believe that even a seven-year old child will know that the Princess of Gunong Ledang was not sincere about marrying the Sultan. After hearing the lengthy speech of the Member for Queenstown for 7½ hours, and the lengthy speeches made by the other Barisan Sosialis Members which were all of the same content, we know that the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis are just like this Princess of Gunong Ledang. They are not sincere in seeking merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. No matter how the Member for Queenstown and his friends talk of their being in favour of merger, and no matter how they play with words to turn our merger proposal into a phoney merger and a kind of sell-out, they cannot cover up their intrigues and real intentions to sabotage merger, i.e. purposely to advocate a kind of merger which is not in keeping with the present conditions and situation prevailing in the two territories. 4.11 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, everybody will agree that before dealing with an issue of national importance, disputes between parties and groups of people that cannot be resolved amicably should be resolved and conciliated through peaceful discussions, and an understanding arrived at. But if all the parties concerned have no real intention to solve the problem, then the problem cannot be solved even if they continue to talk for days. We know that the Barisan Sosialis are not in favour of merger. This belief is not groundless. The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is a good example. Who does not like the 630,000 citizens of Singapore to become citizens of the Federation after merger? But the raw fact and objective realities have made us advance our merger in accordance with these objective facts. Undeniably the colonial rulers' divide and rule policy has sown the seed of suspicion among the various races. Before we can thoroughly disperse the suspicious frame of mind existing in the Malays and Chinese about each other, if we ask the Federation to give automatic citizenship rights to Singapore citizens, and if we make this a pre-condition for merger between the two territories, then it is unrealistic. But for the sake of the future of Singapore and in the interest of the people of Singapore, we do not want to advance unrealistic conditions for merger. We want to discuss calmly and peacefully with the Federation of Malaya in order to resolve this question, so that the sister State of Singapore can achieve reunification with the Federation of Malaya early. The proposal in the White Paper on merger tabled in this Assembly is the most proper and adequate merger proposal under the present circumstances. The Barisan Sosialis are unreasonable. They do not want merger for the following reasons. Firstly, they know that the Malays in the Federation are suspicious of the people of Singapore. They are, therefore, now putting in this amendment to the motion in order to frighten the Malays in the Federation. Secondly, they know clearly that under their so-called true merger, Singapore's labour and education policies and other policies will come under the control of the Federation Government. In spite of the fact that they have been trying to argue and to persuade the people to accept their true merger proposals, and to hand over autonomy in labour and education to the Federation of Malaya, they know very well that this cannot be done. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis know that they cannot convince the principals, students and their parents to accept the education policy of the Federation of Malaya. That is why they have proposed their kind of merger, that is, to hand over autonomy in education to the Federation Government. Is this not a good example to show that they do not want merger? The Barisan Sosialis, on the one hand, criticise the education policy of the Federation as incorrect and wrong. They say that after merger, many Chinese students in the Federation will come to Singapore to join Chinese schools here. This means that they do recognise the fact that there is autonomy in education in Singapore. But, on the other hand, they say that in order to seek true merger they are willing to hand over autonomy in education to the Federation of Malaya. Is this kind of talk not contradictory? On 13th September, the Member for Queenstown made a statement in the Press asking the P.A.P. Government to state whether it agreed with the education policy of the Federation of Malaya. I say this is childish and unnecessary. If the Chinese-educated people in Singapore could immediately accept the education policy of the Federation of Malaya, then there would have been no need for the Prime Minister to say that Singapore would ask the Federation Government to grant Singapore autonomy in education. Now I want to ask the Member for Queenstown if he knows what will happen if the Barisan Sosialis' so-called merger does materialise. First, if in future students of the 28 Chinese middle Schools want to sit for the Government common examination, they will have to answer the papers either in Malay or in English. Second, the Chinese middle schools in Singapore from Junior I to III or Senior I to III or the present 4:2 system will be abolished in future. Third, the Government will not be able thereafter to use public funds to give aid to Chinese schools and to build Chinese middle schools. Fourth, the question of giving assistance to and the development of Nanyang University will be a problem. Do the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues really believe that they have the ability to persuade Chinese education circles to accept these conditions? If they have this great ability, then let them describe here what they can do. Let them move a motion in this Assembly asking the people of Singapore to accept the education policy of the Federation of Malaya.

Resign!

Order.

(In Mandarin): The Member for Havelock - they all smack of the same smell. Otherwise, they would not call upon us to resign. I want to ask the Member for Queenstown, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, this question. Does he know that the P.A.P. gives equal treatment to the four streams of education, and that the Chinese students have a chance to sit for their examination in their mother tongue! Then the recent incident about the boycotting of the examinations. All the efforts of the Government to promote equal treatment for all streams of education have been sabotaged by instigators who incited the students to boycott the examinations. They have accused the Government of trying to destroy Chinese education. The events in the past few weeks have proved to us that for the Chinese students and educators in Singapore to accept the education policy of the Federation of Malaya is not as easy as the Barisan Sosialis have imagined. Their views are unrealistic. If autonomy in education is in the hands of the Federation Government, then it would not be easy to handle the consequences. All this goes to show that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are not sincere in their talk. On the one hand, they shout for merger, but on the other hand, they try to sabotage it. On the one hand, they say they want to persuade the people of Singapore to hand over autonomy in education to the Federation Government; but on the other hand, they secretly incited the students to boycott the common examination, accusing the Government of trying to destroy Chinese education. They have brought out all kinds of slogans deliberately to smear the P.A.P. Government, saying that the Government is trying to destroy Chinese education. Now, who is destroying Chinese education? Who has been trying to hinder the development of Chinese education? The P.A.P. Government is not like the governments in many other countries in South-East Asia which have closed down many Chinese schools. Instead, the P.A.P. Government has built many Chinese Primary and Secondary schools. It has spent large sums of money building Chinese schools, both Primary and Secondary. The Government is also prepared to enable the Chinese-educated to go right up to university level. Does this show that the Government is trying to destroy Chinese education? Those people who accuse us of this act can only raise some kind of argument which is groundless. For instance, they have asked us to let those who have not passed the Junior IV examination to be allowed to sit for the Senior II examination. They use all kinds of unreasonable arguments to accuse the Government of trying to destroy Chinese education. Mr Deputy Speaker, the people who drafted this declaration want to rouse suspicions among the various communities. They are really trying to do this to achieve their own aim. In our society in Malaya, if people try to play up communalism and spark off feelings of communalism, then the consequences will be disastrous to all of us. I want to ask this question of the Member for Queenstown and the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen, who claim that they are trying to seek complete merger. Do they want to hand over autonomy in education to the Federation of Malaya after merger, and thus abolish the giving of equal treatment to the four streams of education? The Member for Anson has said that if we can achieve complete merger, he is willing to hand over autonomy in education and labour to the Federation Government. May I ask him whether he can persuade the Chinese-educated people in Singapore to accept the Rahman Talib Education Report of the Federation of Malaya? If he really believes at this stage that he has that ability, especially after the incident of the boycott of the examinations, then I would advise him to see a doctor about his health. The Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson have argued that the education system in the two territories should be unified so as to avoid its developing along two different lines, which will have disastrous consequences. We all hope that the people of the two territories can have a unified education system. This is the ultimate objective of the P.A.P. Government. But the divide and rule policy of the colonial rulers has separated Singapore from the Federation of Malaya and, as a result, we have the present unhealthy situation here. In order to prevent these education systems developing along two different lines, we are trying to seek an early merger so as to unify the education systems in the two territories through negotiations after merger. If merger cannot be realised soon, then Singapore will be isolated under the Greater Malaysia Plan. The education systems in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya will then be going towards different extremes and the people of the two territories will go along different lines, further and further away from each other, so that in the end, only by the use of force can merger be achieved. This would be disastrous. At present, for the purposes of realising an early merger and reunification of the two territories, we have to resort to practical plans. We cannot insist that the Federation of Malaya should accept our education policy, and it is not easy for us to persuade the people of Singapore to accept the education policy of the Federation of Malaya. That is why we want to ask the Federation of Malaya to let us have autonomy in education. In this respect, we have their sympathy and they have agreed. Mr Deputy Speaker, the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis have said over and over again that our proposed merger is a sell-out. What do we sell out? Is it the citizenship right? The 624,000 citizens of Singapore will retain their citizenship rights. For what are we sold out? From the impression we have gained after all these events, we know that the people of Singapore have acquired their present citizenship rights through many difficulties. Now, what they are afraid of is that their acquired citizenship rights will be lost. That is their only fear. Here, I wish to quote an excerpt from the Nanyang Siang Pau of the 1st of December. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce at a meeting has agreed to convene a forum of local organisations to discuss the question of merger, and they have requested Government t Ministers to take part and, explain to them the questions relating to merger. The Government has agreed. According to the report here, the Directors of the Executive Committee of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce have all agreed that in the past, the Chinese have tried very hard and have gone through many difficulties before they have acquired their present citizenship right, and this right should not be endangered. Now, from the speeches by these representatives, we gather that what they fear is that the citizenship right, already acquired, will be lost. If those people who accuse us of selling out were to look at the White Paper on merger, they would see that after merger, the 624,000 citizens of Singapore will still retain their citizenship right and they can still take part in elections and stand for election in Singapore to be representatives in the Singapore Legislative Assembly or in the Federal Parliament. Is this a sell-out? A sell-out must mean that you must have something to sell out. If you do not sell out anything, how can it be termed a sell-out? If they do not understand this point, let them go back to school and start afresh, learning their lessons there and to look up their dictionaries. The citizenship already acquired will be retained. Now, if this can be termed a sell-out, then I say that those people should consult a doctor. The Member for Queenstown has forgotten his pledge when he joined the P.A.P. He has signed an agreement that in the case of leaving -

I think this is a repetition. This argument has already been put forward by the Government benches.

(In Mandarin): As a man, he should keep his promise. What do we sell out? The people of Singapore have secured an education policy which gives equal treatment to all the four streams of education. The people have got this after going through many difficulties. Now, is this a sell-out? If there is a merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca, then this would truly be a kind of sell-out, because under it, many citizens of Singapore will lose their citizenship right. If we go according to the conditions proposed by the Barisan Sosialis, then our policy of equal treatment to all the four streams of education will be sold out. If there is anyone who is selling out the people, it must be the Barisan Sosialis. We can still use four languages to express our views in this House. But if we follow the Barisan Sosialis' so-called complete merger, then I believe many of the present Assemblymen will not be able to sit here again because they cannot express themselves either in English or in the national language. But under the P.A.P. proposed merger, the equal status of the four streams of education and the right to express oneself in the four languages will still be preserved. Then how can you term this kind of merger a sell-out? When our merger proposals are realised, businessmen and merchants of Singapore can still carry on their business as usual, but under the Barisan Sosialis' merger, I am afraid many merchants will lose their business. That can then be termed a kind of sell-out. We do not sell out the people. On the other hand, we have tried to preserve the fruits of the people, and we have tried hard to reunify the two territories so that the people of the two territories can come closer together as early as possible. The Member for Thomson has raised several points, but because time is rather short and as many of my colleagues have already given their replies, I therefore do not propose to waste too much time of this Assembly. Based on the reasons given above, I therefore oppose the amendment moved by the Minister for Queenstown. In order to achieve an early merger, we have to recognise the practical objective of reunifying the people of the two territories as soon as possible.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past few days we have been debating the amendment brought forward by the Member for Queenstown. In the course of this debate, we have on many occasions got the opportunity to hear the contradictions made by Members on the Government benches. On the one hand, the motion moved by the Minister for Health says that it is the true objective of all nationalists to achieve a merger between Singapore and the Federation. On the other hand, - The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chew Chua) rose -

Is it a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. The motion was moved by the Minister for Labour and not the Minister for Health.

(In Mandarin): On the other hand, in the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the 31st of October in this House, it is stated that we are not prepared to have a complete merger. The Members in the Government, on the one hand, contend that only the Communists are afraid of merger and therefore they are opposing merger. But, on the other hand, they say that those who want a complete merger are the communists. On the one hand, the Government Ministers say that Singapore and the Federation should merge so that Singapore citizens can become Federal nationals. They also say that Federal nationals mean the same as Federal citizens, so why should they oppose our amendment to the motion? Is it not a contradiction? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis advocate a complete and genuine merger. Because of this, we have been accused of being anti-national. The motion of the Minister for Labour says that it is the true objective of all patriots to reunify the two territories of Singapore and the Federation. On the one hand, the Government makes the accusation that we in the Barisan Sosialis are afraid of being controlled by the Central Government in the event of merger. On the other hand, it says that if we hand over our education and labour rights to the Central Government, it will be bad for us. We have been accused that our demand for equal citizenship rights is only for the interest of the Chinese, and that this is a good example of Chinese chauvinism. On the other hand, the Member for Jalan Besar said that in the event of a genuine merger, the Bank of China would not be allowed to continue its business here, that is to say, China would not be allowed to continue her trade with Singapore. So who is guilty of Chinese chauvinism? We demand equal rights for the citizens of both territories, but the Government Members have a very strange explanation for the term "equality". For example, the Member for Bras Basah said that you cannot come here and you cannot go there, and that this is equality. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have heard over the last few days speeches which were very strange. The logic used was also very strange. If their logic is accepted, then the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is this. Those who claim to be patriots and nationalists may well be those traitors who are trying to sell out the interests of the people. On the other hand, those accused of being anti-nationalist and anti-patriotic - according to the inference to be drawn from the logic of Members of the P.A.P. - can be said to be true patriots and nationalists. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis have introduced the amendment to the motion because of necessity. Everyone of us knows that Parliament is the pivot of the democratic system and that, therefore it should not indulge in saying things which are not true. It should not call a horse a deer, or a deer a horse. A horse is a horse and a deer is a deer. There should never be a dispute about that. Now before our clever Prime Minister came to this House to debate the question of merger, he talked a great deal over Radio Singapore and he was widely reported in the newspapers. He tried to tell us that a horse is the same as a deer because both of them are four-legged. He said that the citizens of Singapore can become Federal nationals and that therefore Singapore citizens and Federal nationals mean the same thing. If he had not spent a lot of time in trying to say that a horse is a deer and a deer is a horse, that the constitutional arrangement is actually a merger when it is not so, and that citizens are nationals when in fact they are not so, we would not have found it necessary to introduce our amendment to the motion with the provision that all Singapore citizens should automatically become Federal citizens on Merger Day. This amendment put forward by us is the means to test whether the merger is true or phoney. I feel that those in this House who are out to protect parliamentary democracy should not come to tell lies in this dignified House.

Order. Did I hear the Member use the word "lies"?

It should be corrected.

I do not want the hon. Member to indulge in an argument with the Chair as to the translation. The word "lies" should be withdrawn.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the correct translation should be "falsehoods".

On a point of order, Sir. He said "huang hua", which means lies.

No, "falsehoods".

Order. The difficulty of the Chair is that he does not understand Mandarin and he has to depend on the interpretation. So I have to depend on whatever is interpreted. Therefore, the word "lies" should be withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am just trying to say that if they say these things, then it will be the same as coming to this House to tell lies.

I have made the ruling and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that word.

(In Mandarin): If you want me to withdraw that word because of the difficulty in interpreting, then I withdraw it without any dispute. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the object of our amendment to the motion is to achieve common citizenship rights for the people of the two territories on Merger Day. We want to achieve that so that the people of Singapore and the Federation will be able to share a common political life after merger. This is the basic objective of all socialists. If the P.A.P. is a socialist Party which adheres to the principles of socialism, I do not see why they should oppose common citizenship rights for the people of the two territories. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regards the rights of a citizen and those of a Federal national, are they the same? In this connection, I would like to know whether the arrangement as contained in the White Paper is a true merger. Two persons have spoken on this matter. One was the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and the other was the Prime Minister of our State. In the discussions between these two persons, there can only be one truth. The Tunku said that the present constitutional arrangement between the two territories is not a merger, but the Prime Minister of Singapore said that it is a merger. The Prime Minister of the Federation set down terms in a letter dated 13th November addressed to the Prime Minister of Singapore which are very clear. In the fourth paragraph of his letter, he stated that he had already agreed that all Singapore citizens would reserve their present rights and become automatic nationals of the new Federation. In the next paragraph, the Tunku pointed out clearly that the demand for automatic conversion of citizenship on merger could not be accepted in his Constitution.

Order. Will the Member be speaking for a long time?

Yes, about half an hour more.

In that case, I shall suspend this sitting until 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m.until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I quoted a letter dated 13th October from the Prime Minister of the. Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, addressed to the Prime Minister of Singapore. This letter proved that the Prime Minister of the Federation was willing to accept Singapore citizens as Federal nationals under the Federation constitutional arrangements. But he did not accept the automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens. On the other hand, our Prime Minister has repeatedly informed the people of Singapore that the definition of "citizenship" is the same as that of "national". Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said just now that there can only be one truth. In the conversation between the Prime Ministers of the Federation and Singapore, there can only be one person who speaks the truth. And everyone of us is aware that the person who speaks the truth is the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government Members and the Ministers criticise us saying that we the Barisan Sosialis fight for citizenship rights because we are going to stand for election in the Federation. They say that that is wrong because the people of Singapore have fought for the rights of citizenship and for participation in the livelihood of the people since the operation of socialism. We can see this sort of reports in the newspapers recently, fighting for the rights of citizenship. As early as 1947 a group of Singapore merchants initiated this type of movement to struggle for the rights of citizenship. The right of citizenship is to protect the right of everybody, participation in political life and the livelihood of the people. How can the P.A.P. say that the fight for citizenship is by the Barisan Sosialis and is only for the interests of a few of them? Mr Speaker, Sir, now I want to talk about whether we can get what we want. Just now I have pointed out that to seek the reunification of citizenship rights in the country is one of the principles of socialism. In Singapore the present ruling P.A.P. Government has been elected by the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. Government has no right to hand over so many rights to the Federation Government without preserving the rights of the citizens of Singapore in the Federal Parliament. Rut the P.A.P. Government, elected by the people of Singapore, is not willing to fight and will not fight for equal citizenship rights for the citizens of Singapore. Instead, they say that it is unreasonable to fight for citizenship rights, and they accuse us of trying to confuse the people by demanding equal citizenship rights. This kind of argument by the ruling P.A.P. has angered many. The fight for citizenship rights is a matter of principle. But whether we are able to achieve this is not a matter of principle. When we want to do something, in addition to resolution and willingness, we have to know how we are going to do it, and what strength we have got to achieve it. On the question of fighting for citizenship rights, the Prime Minister of Singapore did not mobilise the people. Instead, he went to the Federation of Malaya to play golf by himself alone. Of course, he could not achieve anything by doing this.

Order. In this debate, I do not wish to have any personalities of that nature.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, not to fight for what we should fight for, but to fight for something which the Right-wingers want to give us; and not to want to fight for something which the Rightist elements do not want to give us: is all this not opportunism? We should especially now fight for what we should fight for. But instead, they have not tried to do so. The Tunku said that he was not willing. But he did not say it could not be done. On this question, the Government of Singapore has quoted the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya at random, and has been misquoting the Federation laws in trying to declare this and that, but in the end the whole thing is in a mess, and everything is confused. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the motion by the Minister for Labour is unnecessary because the search for the reunification of the two territories, Singapore and the Federation, and the avoidance of their separation have all along been the objective of Malayan nationalists and patriots. In the platform of the P.A.P., merger is one of the objectives. In the platform of the Barisan Sosialis, merger is also one of the objectives. But today the Government want to embarrass us by putting forward this motion. Is it not because we are opposed to their form of merger? Therefore, their motion include such phrases as "patriots" and "nationalism" in order to confuse the vision of the people. They think that if the Barisan Sosialis oppose the motion by the Minister for Labour, it will prove that the Barisan Sosialis are not patriotic but are anti-nationalist. I want to ask: if we oppose the motion by the Minister for Labour, are we unpatriotic? Are we not nationalists? I think that is not the correct way to judge. I want to ask them: when the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya said that he did not want merger between the two territories, did they say that the Tunku was not patriotic and was not a nationalist for having said that? From this we can see that whether he is patriotic or nationalistic cannot be decided by whether he supports the motion of the Minister for Labour. For instance, if the Singapore People's Alliance support the motion of the Minister for Labour, can they be termed as patriotic and nationalistic? Even now the British colonialists and rulers are not opposed to merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Can we then say that they are also patriotic and Malayan nationalists? Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. Government have all along stressed the question of autonomy in labour and education as proposed in the White Paper on merger. They have repeatedly stressed that there should be such a guarantee under the proposed constitutional arrangement. Mr Speaker, in the eyes of the people, constitutional safeguards are useless. The reason is that in the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, it is not stated that the people should not have freedom of assembly, speech, association and travel. The Constitution does not also provide for the deprivation of political rights and citizenship rights. But today when certain citizens of Singapore wish to travel to the Federation of Malaya, permits may be required. For instance, when the students of Nanyang University travelled to the Federation, they were accused of doing so without first having obtained a permit. Everybody knows the case of the Chinese educationist, Mr Lim Leng Geok. He spoke on behalf of Chinese education, but in the end he was accused of not being patriotic and loyal to the Federation Government. My contention is that written safe-guards in the Constitution cannot bring peace to the people. On the other hand, the fact that the P.A.P. Government wants autonomy in labour and education shows that it knows that many of the policies of the Federation of Malaya, particularly in regard to education and labour, cannot be accepted by the people of Singapore. I want to enumerate a few instances to show that the people do not believe in written safeguards in the Constitution. This is because, firstly, everybody knows that the Federation Government has the right, through the Central Parliament, to amend the Constitution. Secondly, and this is more important, the people of Singapore have themselves learnt from two years' experience that the P.A.P. leadership are not doing things according to what they have promised to the people. Mr Speaker, in the first Anniversary Souvenir of the P.A.P. the Secretary-General, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, wrote an article on the stand of the P.A.P. In this article, he says, "What we want is an independent, democratic Malaya." Our political beliefs and objectives can be achieved through peaceful and constitutional means. In a democratic Malaya, any citizen, as long as he is willing, will have the right to persuade the people to form a democratic Malaya or even a Communist Malaya." Today the people know that the P.A.P. have forgotten what they have said. The P.A.P. have all along stressed that they do not belong to the Russian bloc, the S.E.A.T.O. bloc or the anti-Communist bloc. All this is written in the first. Anniversary Souvenir of the P.A.P. All this is what the Secretary-General, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, said in this Souvenir. But today his stand has changed. Mr Speaker, today everyone of us knows that the Tunku is a staunch anti-Communist. Whether or not the Tunku's anti-Communist attitude is correct is another matter. But we know that since the Tunku is anti-Communist, only is he anti-Communist in Malaya, but his stand on anti-Communism has been extended beyond the shores of Malaya. This is what the Nanyang Siang Pau of 25th November said when reporting a Reuter's news item issued on 23rd November. It reported the Tunku's answers in a Press conference when replying to questions put by reporters. When a journalist asked the Tunku whether he thought that after the establishment of Malaysia, there would be a greater opportunity for him to counter the threat of Chinese Communists, Tunku Abdul Rahman replied, "Yes. I think it is correct to say so." In all his talks, the Tunku has stressed that his main interest in Malaysia was mainly to oppose Communism. I do not want to criticise the Tunku and say whether he was correct or not in saying such things. But I just want to remind the people that the P.A.P. has changed its stand. Mr Speaker, Sir, I now want to quote from the P.A.P. Party organ of 7th November, 1958. This is from the editorial of the 21st issue. The title is, "Anti-Communist, non-Communist and pro-Communist." It then says that to be anti-Communist means to fall into the hands of the reactionaries. This is a useless and negative policy. The end would be disaster and unfortunate. This is to support people like Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-shek in their fight against the 600 million Chinese people. The revolution in China has been the greatest event in recent history. The most insignificant thing that can be done in Asia is to oppose this revolution and to oppose the 600 million Chinese. That would be a most futile thing to do. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore are acting according to their own experience. They fully know that what the P.A.P. have uttered in so many words on paper are useless. How can they make the people of Singapore believe that once autonomy in education and labour is written into the Constitution, this autonomy will be safeguarded and the people will be well assured? This is especially so when, in their two years of office, the P.A.P. have not carried out their policy on labour and education, as they have promised. Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to point out once more that according to the P.A.P. type of merger, the citizens of Singapore cannot have pan-Malayan franchise and become citizens of Malaya. Then what is the meaning of this merger? According to the P.A.P. type of merger, the future citizens of Singapore, wishing to be citizens of the Federation of Malaya, will have to comply with the Five-year or ten-year residential qualification. They will be restricted by this qualification and limitation. According to the contents of the P.A.P.'s White Paper on merger, i.e., after this kind of merger is realised, the people of Singapore and the status of Singapore cannot even be compared to the status of the Bornean territories before they merge into the new Federation. On the question of citizenship rights, the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Thomson have both given very clear explanations. It is not necessary for me to reiterate. I want now only to reply to several questions which the Ministers and P.A.P. Assemblymen have asked us. The Minister for Culture and the Minister for Home Affairs have repeatedly asked us whether we agree to the Rahman Talib Report. I want to tell them categorically that it is not necessary for a citizen of a country to agree entirely with the policies of the ruling Party and the P.A.P. On this question, we advocate that the citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the Federation on Merger Day. It does not mean that we agree with all the policies of the Federation Government. The policy of a country is decided by the people. In other words, it depends on citizenship rights. Whether or not we agree to the Rahman Talib Report, we already explained this very clearly on the 28th of August. Our Party Assemblymen have also quoted what we said on that day in regard to these questions. But I want to mention it here once more. From what the P.A.P. Ministers have asked us, we can see that their views are that anyone who wants to be a citizen should agree with the policy of the ruling Party. Now, this explains why there are so many people in Singapore who have not yet acquired citizenship rights. In fact, there are no provisions in the constitution of any democratic country to say that a citizen should support the policies of the ruling Party in order to become citizens. Mr Speaker, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya have been separated by the British colonialists for 16 years. After this 16 years, the Federation of Malaya has a Right-wing Government which supports the capitalists. But on the other hand, in Singapore we have a Left-wing people who dominate the population and who support socialism. Even capitalists and reactionaries who want to organise Parties must do so in the name of socialism in order to get the support of the people. So from these two sets of circumstances existing in the two territories, we can see that there is a great deal of difference. If the present Right-wing Government in the Federation does not accept complete merger then that is but natural and understandable. But the question is, if the Federation Government is not willing to have complete merger, then we should, on our part, try to seek other ways of co-operation between the two territories. In the first place, the Government should hold meetings with all the political Parties in Singapore. It should also consult the people's organisations to seek ways and means of co-operation between Singapore and the Federation. The Government should by no means try to rush matters for the sake of their own power. The Government should not try to hand over the destiny of the people in Singapore to the Right-wing Government in the Federation. There are many Members in this House, including Members in the Government, who have said that merger is necessary. It should be something which has come out of necessity from both sides. I will ask them to consult the people and find out from them whether they are willing to have a merger. I have just said that Singapore and the Federation have two different sets of circumstances and, therefore, things which are beneficial and advantageous to the Federation Government need not be advantageous to the people of Singapore. The Federation Government is a feudalistic and capitalist Government. But in the case of Singapore, the great force is socialism. So in these circumstances, to use force to rush through the P.A.P. type of merger will not bring prosperity and well-being to the country. This is a question which is worth our consideration. The people of Singapore, especially the Chinese, support socialism, but the ruling clique in the Federation prefers the capitalist system. So if we have a merger according to the P.A.P. plan, then the question of communalism will become more and more acute. This is because the P.A.P. has itself said in a publication during the election that the struggle against economic exploitation can easily be described as a communal conflict. Many people have spoken from the Opposition side. They have pointed out that according to the type of merger proposed by the P.A.P., it is doubtful that the life of the people in Singapore will improve. This has not been denied by the Minister for Finance. In other words, he cannot even assure us that after merger the people in Singapore will be able to enjoy a prosperous life with many employment opportunities. The P.A.P. think that the people of Singapore are dissatisfied with the present situation and so they want to have merger as soon as possible. But the dissatisfaction of the people with the present situation cannot be resolved by merger alone. The dissatisfaction has mainly stemmed from the fact that there is a strong force of colonialists in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of the last two years I have been a Member of the Government. I know the difficulties of forming a government and ruling the country. But the question is whether the Government, when confronted with difficulties, is courageous enough to face them and tell the people the actual cause of such difficulties. On the contrary, the Government, instead of doing this, is trying to cover up these difficulties in defence of the colonialists. Generally speaking, the dissatisfaction of the people has come about because the Government is arrogant and dictatorial in its attitude. Instead of examining itself for its faults, the Government is trying to get assistance from the Right-wing Government in the Federation -

Order. There appears to be something wrong with the interpretation. It is not coming through. Would the hon. Member like to try again?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that every true follower of socialism wants a society in which there is no exploitation of man by man, that is to say, he wants to reform the present situation. He must necessarily, through his words and deeds, organise the people so that they will come forward and take part in a social reform. The P.A.P. knows what kind of Party is in power in the Federation. In an article written by the Minister for Culture on 19th April, 1959, he stated that the communal parties in Malaya were generally of the opinion that the present economic system should be maintained. In other words, the P.A.P. want to maintain a capitalist society. If after merger we still remain a socialist Party, we will continue to fight for the objectives of socialism and we will still continue to create a society in which there is no exploitation of man by man. If we do all this, it will be considered as subversive activities. It will be natural for the P.A.P. to say so. The Federation Government will not like to have such a Party and it will not allow people to carry out social reforms or overthrow the capitalist system. All activities in this respect will not be allowed. Anybody who wants to carry out social reforms will be considered a Communist by the Party in power which wants to maintain the status quo.

Order. I wonder how the argument which is being put forward can be an argument in favour of a genuine merger. It seems to be an argument against merger. Let us try to stick to the amendment which asks for a genuine merger. Mr Chan.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in a short while, I will be talking about our stand because, in the course of speeches made by the Ministers of the Government, accusations were made against us to the effect that we are afraid of being arrested by the Federation Government. In his speech, the Prime Minister himself said many, many things about communism, communalism, socialism and nationalism. I will take about one or two minutes to explain this question. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not care whether our actions are advantageous or disadvantageous to the Communists. Our main aim is to do things which are in the interest of the people. The Prime !Minister himself has said that things which are conducive to the interest of the people may also be conducive to the interest of the Communists. Therefore, on this question of merger, we are not afraid of being scolded or being called any names by anybody. We want to go about merger in the interests of the people and the socialists. Now the P.A.P. says that as the fight for citizenship rights is beneficial to the Communists, we must not pursue it. This is not acceptable to us. The Ministers in the Government have said that a Communist is only known to himself and his God. Of course, you also have intelligence agents who know. On the question of merger, I would like to ask the P.A.P. to say whether a sell out of Singapore, is not detrimental to the interest's of the people. I think this question can only be answered by the people themselves, apart from God and the P.A.P. itself. We have stated that we are content to have a complete merger even if it may bring frustration to the socialists. As long as the people have equal citizenship rights with those in the Federation, we in the socialist front are prepared to make such sacrifices. If the Federation Government cannot accept Singapore citizens as Federal citizens, then we should try to find other ways .and means to bring about more co-operation between Singapore and the Federation, The two territories are economically associated and they are complementary to each other. We do not care about the political beliefs of each Government so long as the co-operation between the two Governments will enable the people of both territories to find ways and means to bring them closer together. Our contention is that if the Federation Government is not prepared to accept complete merger, then we can have a form of confederation or .even complete self-government. I do not see anything wrong in this. Even in complete self-government, foreign affairs and the defence of Singapore can be handed over to the Central Government in the Federation. The P.A.P. have all along been in favour of the existence of the Internal Security Council because they want to have an excuse to shirk their responsibilities. The Member for Cairnhill has pointed out that trade unions and so on should not be interfered with by the Internal Security Council. This explains why the P.A.P. want to have the Internal Security Council so that they can have an excuse to shirk their responsibilities. Now let me show whether the P.A.P. are sincere towards the Federation Government. It is a pity that the Prime Minister is not in this House today for he will not be able to prove to us that what I am going to say is false. Before the P.A.P. came into power I had occasion to discuss with the Prime Minister the relationship between Singapore and the Federation. He told me that the best way would be for Singapore and the Federation to merge so that the Singapore Government would be a local government. If that is the case, it would be easier for the people to take charge of the government. The Prime Minister also said that if we did anything good, credit for it could be claimed by the local government of Singapore. But if we did anything bad, it could be pushed on to the Federation Government. Today we see that the P.A.P. is stressing and repeating again and again autonomy in education and labour. This is only a realisation of what the Prime Minister thought at that time. The P.A.P. Government said that the situation after merger would be one in which Singapore will have autonomy in education and labour, that is to say, the pro-labour policy will be a credit to the P.A.P. Government and the system of equal treatment of the four language streams will also be a credit to the P.A.P. Government. As for the arrest of people and the toeing of the Right-wing line in the international field and .the inability to improve the livelihood of the people of Singapore, the blame could be put on the Federation. This is the true intention of the P.A.P. merger. This intention, in my opinion, does not show the sincerity of the Prime Minister towards the Federation. The Prime Minister has this to say on the present situation in Singapore. The Prime Minister in his analysis had occasion to tell me, before I left the P.A.P., that Singapore could only have three types of situations. The first situation would be one in which the S.P.A. would come in again to take office. The second situation would be one in which the P.A.P. Government continued in office until the constitutional talks in 1963. The third situation would be one in which a Left-wing Party rose to take office. According to the Prime Minister, it this Left-wing Party should come in and take office, it would mean the suspension of the constitution and chaos in our society. Therefore, the Prime Minister said that the Tunku was in favour of having a Right-wing Government in Singapore, since it would be beneficial to the Federation Government. And if the P.A.P. should continue to hold office so that the status quo is maintained, then nothing harmful would happen to the Federation Government. But in the case of a Left-wing Government, the result would be the suspension of the constitution. And this situation would also be disadvantageous to the Federation Government. This is the view of the Prime Minister on the situation in Singapore. He knows that under the present circumstances, genuine Left-wing forces are trying to overthrow the P.A.P. Government and replace it by peaceful means. He knows that this is possible. Furthermore, he himself feels that there is no evidence to explain that Singapore would be in chaos if a Party which is more Left than the P.A.P. should take office. So the only way he could choose now is to prevent the Left-wing forces from taking over the place of the P.A.P. The second point is that the P.A.P. must depend on its own strength to maintain its position.

I was waiting very patiently to hear the Member for Upper Serangoon relate all this to the merger problem. As I have indicated earlier on, he seems to be arguing against his own amendment. If he will come back to his amendment, perhaps we will get on.

(In Mandarin): I feel that what I have said is not irrelevant but explains why the P.A.P. wants to bring up their original motion. In the circumstances as I have mentioned, the only way for the P.A.P. is to contest with Lim Yew Hock for the support of the Federation Government. Today the P.A.P. is no longer a Left-wing Party. It is no longer enjoying the confidence of the people. Although in the motion of the Minister for Labour there is some mention of colonialists, in actual fact, the P.A.P. is not scolding the colonialists any more. The People's Action Party Ministers try to analyse all sorts of forces in their speeches. For example, the Deputy Prime Minister said in Hong Lim Green on 22nd February, 1959, at a mass rally, that behind the Singapore People's Alliance, there were three types of forces. The first force was the compradores in the local banks. The second force lies in Britain and America, who are supporting Lim Yew Hock. The third force lies in the Ministers of the Federation, for example, the Education Minister,. Inche Johari. I would like to ask the Ministers in the P.A.P.: where are these forces which support Lim Yew Hock? How is it that -

Order. I am still in the dark as to how these remarks are related to the amendment.

(In Mandarin): It is my intention to point out why the Four-Party Alliance supports the P.A.P. in this type of merger. I want to explain why they should have concerted action on this question.

Order. Is that relevant to the amendment? We are asking the House, on the amendment, to affirm and declare that "the avowed objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories" - (taking in the amendment) - "in a genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state, and all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day." The fact that Parties gang up in this matter surely is not relevant.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have brought up this amendment to the motion to show that Singapore citizens must become Federal citizens. When we do this, we are shouted at by the Party in power. The Minister for Finance says that our amendment to the motion has been brought up in order to create trouble and confusion among the people. The Minister for Culture even goes to the extent of saying angrily, "Well, you must be careful. The locomotive of history will come and run over you." Why should they be so angry? Well, this reminds me of a story written by Hans Anderson of Denmark. The story is entitled, "The new cloak of the Emperor." I do not wish to relate this story at length. But I would suggest to the Ministers that they go and buy a copy each of this book published by the Oxford University Press in London, entitled "Fairy Tales by Hans Anderson". From this book they will be able to pick up the relevant paragraphs so that they will know why the Emperor was very angry when he put on a cloak which was non-existent. When a boy pointed out to him that he was actually wearing a cloak which was non-existent, he became very angry. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will tell you this. Many students in Chinese schools know this fact very well. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether you will allow me to relate this story briefly because the Minister for Finance seems to be challenging me.

Order. I think we have had enough of fairy tales. We had one fairy tale from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. Now we are having a fairy tale from the Member for Upper Serangoon. I think we have had enough of fairy tales. Let us get on.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said that the Minister for Culture has emphasised that merger is inevitable. He said that the locomotive of history might run over us. I ask him, "What is this locomotive of history?" Is it the P.A.P.? No. Is it the Federation Government? I will say "No" again. The locomotive of merger is to be found in the forces of those who are anti-colonialist. The so-called Greater Malaysia and the so-called merger between the Federation and Singapore will chart the course of events very clearly. Merger is inevitable because the forces of anti-colonialists are constantly expanding in these territories. This is not only so in Singapore but also in the whole of South-East Asia. We can even go beyond this and say that anti-colonialism extends throughout the whole world. The anti-colonialist forces are expanding. They are the locomotives of history. You can see this anti-colonial struggle in the Afro-Asian countries. If the P.A.P. are no longer anti-colonialist, then it is they who will be run over by the locomotive of history. The locomotive of history is running very fast. So if they do not want to be eliminated, then, in the words of the Minister for Culture, they still have some time to rectify their ways. They had better make use of this opportunity. Go home and sleep. 6.50 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if we want to establish a nation, we must have a national basis on which to build this nation. But while the P.A.P., on the one hand, propagate that they want to merge with the Federation, on the other hand, they refuse our reasonable and legitimate request for automatic equal citizenship rights. The Government have used the term "national" to explain away the difference between "citizenship" and "nationality". We believe this intention will not be successful. We resolutely oppose the White Paper on merger proposed by the Government. We oppose this even though it stipulates that Singapore will have autonomy in labour and education. We should think in terms of long-term objectives and interests. This is better than what is envisaged in the Government's White Paper and certainly more beneficial to the people. The Minister for Labour is asking the Assembly to support the motion. One of the platforms of the United People's Party is the concepts of merger between the two territories. Therefore, we believe that merger should be a genuine merger. But the constitutional arrangements as envisaged in the White Paper are not conducive to that aim. The motion is contradictory to what is contained in the White Paper. If we accept the Minister for Labour's motion, we will be opposing the Prime Minister's proposal, because under the White Paper there will be two kinds of citizenship. Therefore, our stand is to accept the principle of merger as contained in the motion by the Minister for Labour, if the Government accept the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis, as we have accepted it, because merger means equal citizenship rights. These are not contradictory. When we consider the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis, we feel that the White Paper by the Prime Minister will be more acceptable after the amendment, because there should not be two kinds of citizenship in the two territories. That is our stand on the motion and the amendment before us. 6.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is generally accepted in countries which are pledged to the democratic form of parliamentary government that the main function of the Opposition is to oppose the Government. That is the reason why the Opposition exists. Even in the older established parliamentary democracies like England, occasions have arisen when the Opposition has felt that it is not its duty to oppose the Government but to support it. Such occasions are those which concern the safety of the State, the people as a whole, and the country at large. That is so, Mr Speaker, even in the older countries where societies are stable, and where religious differences, racial differences and the little annoyances which create trouble in democratic institutions have been eliminated. In a young and small country such as ours, which has set its destiny purposely and avowedly on the parliamentary road, and where we have not an established society in the sense that society at large thinks coherently as one interest, it is even more vital and more urgent, Mr Speaker, Sir, that certain areas of government should not be purely party matters. So far as I am concerned personally, I have always advocated that there are certain areas of government in Singapore which are not party matters but national matters. It is not only the concern of the Government, but it is also the concern of the Opposition that whatever political creed or whatever political philosophy we may have, there is one common ground on which all Parties must meet, and that is he advancement and the betterment of our country. I think the question of merger, Mr Speaker, Sir, is one such subject. I speak not as a member of my Party nor as a Member of the Opposition but as a Member of this House, which necessity must be interested in the ultimate destiny of this country and its place in Asian history. Mr Speaker, I was privileged to take part in that historic forum where I think the Minister for Finance spoke for the Government; the Member for Queenstown spoke for the Barisan Sosialis; the Member for Hong Lim spoke for the United People's Party; and I for the Alliance. Sir, in respect of one of the questions that was posed to the forum, I advocated that the Government should call a round-table conference on the question of merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not my intention to embarrass the Government by calling a round-table conference. But I honestly and sincerely felt then, and I do feel now, that merger is not a P.A.P. matter. It is not a party matter. It is a matter that concerns the P.A.P., as well as the Alliance, the Workers' Party or any other political Party in Singapore. That is how I felt then, Mr Speaker, Sir, and that is how I feel now. According to the Order Paper, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have this motion which was proposed on the 20th of November, 1961, since when, as you so often have said at every sitting of this Assembly - meaning the 21st of November, 1961 - an amendment was proposed thereto. We are still on the amendment, and with some luck we might get through with it this evening. And for this, I hold the Prime Minister entirely to blame. If he had adopted an entirely different attitude to the question of merger, and had posed this whole problem to the people of Singapore without giving a party slant to it, I venture to suggest to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, in all earnestness and seriousness, that we might not have been debating the amendment 11 days after it has been moved, and I think a lot of the acrimonious discussion that has gone on in this Chamber could well have been avoided. The Barisan Sosialis have accused the Government of salvaging its bankrupt fortunes by trying to bring about a merger. The position, in reality, is this: that all the Parties - the Singapore People's Alliance, the Workers' Party, and every single Party that contested the elections in the year 1959 - accepted merger as the ultimate political solution for Singapore. So we are all committed to merger, now, tomorrow or in the future, and the only thing that kept us away from merger was whether we could get merger. On the question whether we could get merger, it depended on how readily the Federation Government would react to any suggestion of merger from the Singapore Government. It has so happened that up till sometime in May 1961, the Federation Government had steadfastly refused to discuss the question of merger, and it only became possible to discuss it when the Federation Government, speaking through the Prime Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, made an announcement that he thought that the time was opportune. I think it was the leader of the Barisan Sosialis who asked this question of the House, directed at the Government - why was it that the Tunku, who had so steadfastly set his face against a merger, should, on the face of it, so suddenly appear to change his mind? Not only did the leader of the Barisan Sosialis ask this question, but various Members from the Barisan Sosialis side also asked the Government that. But no answer has been forthcoming. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may conjecture a reason for it. The Barisan Sosialis have suggested that the real reason why the Federation Government has agreed to a merger at this stage is that the Prime Minister of Singapore has been shooting a line to the Tunku about Communists in Singapore and about the Barisan Sosialis, and has so worked up the Tunku that he has got frightened and thought it better to have merger now. That is the line the Barisan Sosialis take on the question why the Tunku has agreed to a merger. I do not agree with that line at all. That rather presupposes that the Tunku does not know what is going on in Singapore. I venture to suggest to the Members behind me that the Tunku is very well informed of what is going on in Singapore. With due respect to the Prime Minister - and I hope he does not take offence - perhaps the Tunku is as equally well informed of what is going on in Singapore as the Prime Minister himself and his colleagues in the Cabinet. I do not think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Tunku was sold a pup by the Singapore Prime Minister. He knew the situation and he knew that he had to act. Mr Speaker, Sir, with great respect to the Member for Cairnhill, I do not believe the Tunku would agree to merger with Singapore merely because the Member for Cairn-hill is his good friend. Histories of countries and nations are not decided on this basis - "He is my good friend. Therefore, I will give him what he wants." If that were the basis for any sort of merger, we might have had merger three or four years ago. But we did not have it. So what then is the reason for the sudden volte-face of the Tunku? Some reason must be forthcoming. I venture to suggest one reason. Whether it is a correct one or just a conjecture or a fairy tale I do not know. Since all of us are indulging in fairy tales, perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, you might allow me one little fairy tale. When the Federation was set up and Singapore was split from the Federation, it suited the purpose of the British and the Federation Government to separate Singapore. That was the only reason that kept us apart. If the Federation had wanted us then and the British had wanted to keep us, I think we would have gone to the Federation. The real reason why we were separated was that the Federation then thought Singapore should be kept apart, and this also happened to tally with the British desire to keep Singapore as a Colony. That was about 15 or 16 years ago. History has moved very fast in this region. Although Members of the Barisan Sosialis at the back like to flog the dead horse of colonialism, it is well and truly dead today. Not even the Barisan Sosialis can revive it, however much they try. It is well and truly dead, and the British know it. The British are smart, much smarter than the Barisan Sosialis. The British know that the days of colonialism are dead and gone. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the little fairy story that I want to tell you; that the British have gone to the Tunku and told him, "Look, Mr Prime Minister, we are clearing out of Singapore, and that is God's truth. Singapore is going to be your baby. You have to look after it." Well, the Tunku is a responsible man. He knows that if the toenail is infected, the poison will soon travel to the heart and the brain. He has got to do something about it. It is not a question of the Tunku wanting to help Singapore and Singapore wanting to help the Federation. It is a question of mutual necessity. I have always maintained the proposition that the Federation must sooner or later take in Singapore. It is not today that I am saying this but I have said this on every single occasion and at any single opportunity that I have had of ventilating my views on this. I have always said so. I took this line at the C.P.A. Conference here when I told the Federation representatives, "You will have to take us in whether you like it or not." And they have to take us in. There is no question of anybody being sold to somebody. It is a question that our mutual interests have to bring us together. Our economic interests are such that we have to join up with the Federation and their political interests are such that they have to take us in. It is our good fortune that on this particular occasion, our interests meet and coincide and there is a mutual desire to come together, and that is why we have come together. It is not a question of the Prime Minister of Singapore selling a line to the Tunku, that the Barisan Sosialis are at it; that Singapore is ridden with Communists, and all that sort of thing; because, on that, the Tunku is much more well informed than are the Barisan Sosialis. Perhaps, Sir, if you will forgive me, I want to tell another little fairy story before I wind up on this subject of fairy stories. Sir, we have heard about the internecine quarrels among the P.A.P. These have been going on since the Government took power in June 1959, up to the time they openly parted company. Mr Lim Ching Siong and the Prime Minister were lying in the same bed - uneasy bed-fellows. But they would have continued to remain uneasy bed-fellows quarrelling with each other. The person who parted them, Mr Speaker, Sir - and this is the fairy tale - is the Tunku himself. When the Tunku made the announcement that merger was a possibility, then it was that the bed-fellows parted company. That was the point of time when the open differences of the P.A.P. came about. That was the time when Mr Lim Ching Siong, the ex-Member for Bukit Timah, decided that he could not carry on with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister knew that he was getting the better of Mr Lim Ching Siong. As soon as the Prime Minister of the Federation announced a merger, they parted company. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is my second fairy story - and I did not get that from Hans Anderson's Fairy Tales! Mr Speaker, I think it was the Member for Anson who used be phrase "a political amendment", and by a political amendment, I think he meant an amendment not really mean what it said on the face of it. My quarrel with the motion and with the amendment is this - and this is the difficulty, and that is why we have had this 12-day debate in this House - that the Government was trying to get the better of the Barisan Sosialis by this motion. The Government said, "We will propose this motion and we will see how the Barisan Sosialis react to it." Mr Speaker, Sir, I blame the Government for this. As I have indicated previously, this is a national issue. This is not a little party struggle across this table here. The interests involved are too vital, too urgent and too important for the survival of this little island of ours for this issue to be made a party struggle and for the Prime Minister to score over the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan Sosialis reacted as humans would. They said, "If you are trying to get the better of us, we will try and get one better over you." They have proposed an amendment which is even more deplorable than the motion itself. Because I am convinced in my own mind that the Barisan Sosialis are not politically such children as they make themselves out to be. If you are trying to negotiate with another country about merging with them, you, as responsible people of the country, know exactly what would be acceptable to the other side. You know what the fears of the other side are. If you are really sincere and honest in your desire to come to them, you do not kindle those fears to get some sort of understanding. You try and play those fears down. After having secured an agreement, you then try to revive these controversial issues, and try to quench the fears which the other side has. Whether those fears are reasonable or not is not the point at the moment. But the point at the moment is that those fears do exist and we have to recognise them as fears, whether or not we are true socialists, as the Member for Thomson has said. The difficulty of the Member for Thomson, in my own view, is this. He is an earnest young socialist. As an earnest young socialist, he thinks that human beings should behave in a certain way. The government of the world should be carried out in a certain way. If it is not carried out in a certain way, then he blows up. But that is not how life is lived. We have to accommodate ourselves to other points of view. If the Federation thinks in a certain way and if we do not agree with it and if we have to come back to the Federation, then we have to readjust our way of thinking, our way of life, and even our political institutions maybe, in order to accommodate them. After merger and using the democratic process, we can help to rectify any errors and try to dilute some of the difficulties which, in our view, exist over there. This is the way and that is the time to do it. But while going to the Federation and saying, "We want a merger, we want reunification, we want to come back to our brothers," we yet say, "Oh, we will only come back if a, b, c and d are given to us," knowing full well that it was a, b, c and d which kept us apart from 1945 up to now. Therefore, to that extent, I consider this amendment a political amendment, and I am confirmed in this view by what I have read in a Press statement - I think it is called The Wartawan - published in November 1961 - where a number of political Parties were asked to contribute their views. Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, was asked to contribute and he did so - and what an excellent article it is. I intend to use it today. In one of the paragraphs, he says: 'It has now become obvious that only the people of Singapore want merger while the Federation Government does not want merger. For merger to materialise, it must have the consent of both parties.' That is what I thought and that is what Mr Lim Ching Siong thought. But listening to the debate on either side, between the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P., apparently the consent of both sides does not matter. I will read on: 'In view of the Federation Government's attitude, the aspirations of the people for genuine reunification cannot be achieved at this juncture.' I will read it again, Mr Speaker, Sir: 'In view of the Federation Government's attitude, the aspirations of the people for genuine reunification cannot be achieved at this juncture.' I am informed - I am subject to correction here - that although the paper was dated November 1961, it was published for reading before 31st October, 1961. I make a point of the date because this motion was moved on 20th November, 1961, and the amendment thereto was moved on 21st November, 1961. When this amendment was moved by the Barisan Sosialis, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, who, I take it, is to the Barisan Sosialis today what the Prime Minister was to the People's Action Party in 1959 and is the mouthpiece of the Party, adumbrating the policies of the Party, the hopes and fears of the Party, and the person who puts out analyses of the situation - political, economic or otherwise - as seen by the Party. The analysis then of the situation on 31st October, 1961, from the Barisan Sosialis, was this: 'In view of the Federation Government's attitude, the aspirations of the people for genuine reunification cannot be achieved at this juncture.' Is it a correct analysis. If it is a correct analysis, what is the point and purpose of this amendment? What game is the Barisan Sosialis playing? Is it to make the approach so difficult that the answer must be a "No". Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fortified in that suggestion because, in the speech by the Member for Queenstown, not only did he say that he wanted all the 640,000 Singapore citizens to become automatically registered as Federal citizens and Singapore to come in as the twelfth State, but he made this further very astounding statement which rather surprised me - I am subject to correction if I misunderstood the Member for Queenstown - "I want it written into the Constitution that it will not be possible to have any of these persons deregistered."

For political reasons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, political reasons maybe or economic reasons, but what I am suggesting to the Member for Queenstown is that this is not the way to get a merger of any sort, be it phoney or otherwise. An hon. Member: They do not want merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis are saying that they want a complete merger now. 'That is the point and purpose of this amendment. Here again, may I quote the mouthpiece of the Barisan Sosialis - the super-analyst of the present political situation? On page 3, column 2, about midway down, it says: 'The Tunku, in discussing his present views on merger, stated that because of the differences arising from separate policies, complete merger at the present moment would cause some degree of uneasiness in the minds of the people of both territories. He stated again. "But one thing is certain and that is we cannot take Singapore with us in complete merger without a great deal of unhappiness and trouble."' So the Barisan Sosialis know all this. They know that unhappiness will be caused there and I am sure they also know that unhappiness will be caused here in a complete merger. And yet we have had it for ten days now, "We want a complete merger. This is the only way to make the people of Singapore happy and our brothers in the Federation happy." Now which is the honest statement, Mr Speaker, I ask you? Both of them cannot be true because they are both contradictory.

No, they are not.

Now having said that, then Mr Lim Ching Siong said in page 3 - I had better read the whole sentence, otherwise I might be accused of quoting out of context: 'It will, in practice, not only fail to bring our peoples together but will widen their existing differences. The struggle of the people of Singapore against exploitation and for more freedom and democratic rights will then run against the Federation Government. This will provide a fertile field for communal politicians to thrive upon. We have already warned that this arrangement will bring about disastrous consequences to national harmony.'. Here the argument goes one way and the argument in this House has gone another way, that if we do not have a complete merger soon, there will be communal differences. It is very difficult to follow when one expert analyses in one way and the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis analyses in another way. [Interruption]

Order.

I have patiently listened to the Member for Queenstown for 7½ hours. I will pay him this compliment, Sir. He was the only speaker I listened to most carefully for 7½ hours, and from that point of view, it is a greater performance on my part than on his part. Sometimes it is more difficult to listen than to talk. An hon. Member: More painful.

I am reminded that I should have said more painful.

Hi-fi!

Sir, after having analysed the situation on that basis, Mr Lim Ching Siong then tried to provide a solution - quite rightly. One of the difficulties I have had in this House listening to the Barisan Sosialis on this merger debate was this. They have been condemning everything. I had hoped for some solution from them to the problem. None was forthcoming. I have listened to them patiently over these 11 days. They have been condemning all the time. They say, "This is wrong. That is wrong. Everything is wrong." I had hoped they would provide some constructive suggestion which would benefit Singapore today, but nothing was forthcoming, except the suggestion that they want complete merger today and that it be written into the Constitution that 640,000 citizens be given inalienable rights - even for registered citizens. That was the only concrete suggestion that came from them. Other than that, they have nothing but "Let us listen to the voice of the people." [Interruption] Oh Yes, I am willing to learn all this: 'Let us now consider the idea of some form of relationship with the Federation of Malaya as a step towards eventual merger.' Mr Speaker, Sir, you see the words of a wise man there: 'Let us now consider the idea of some form of relationship with the Federation of Malaya as a step towards eventual merger.' Is that not what is now before the House? With Mr Lim Ching Siong's permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am going to use his words in an amendment which I am going to move in this House on this debate later and I hope I will get the support of the Barisan Sosialis on my amendment, because Mr Lim Ching Siong claims to be the voice and mentor of the people, and if I use the exact phrase he has used, I am sure the Barisan Sosialis will accept the amendment. Then he goes on to describe the steps towards merger. I wanted to make the point that we had arrived at a political situation in Singapore where, because of the fears in the Federation and in Singapore, it was not possible to have a merger. Therefore, our duty is to think of the next step which will bring the two territories together, because the longer we delay until ideal conditions arrive, the more difficult it is going to become. Therefore, some step should be taken now to bridge the gulf and Mr Lim Ching Siong, as an astute analyst, realises that. He says, " We must take a step forward," and I think, in my own view, Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper proposals are a step forward. Where the Government has gone wrong, I blame the Prime Minister. He is in the House and I repeat it again, "I blame the Prime Minister." Because he has insisted that his proposals are a merger and nothing short of a merger, confusion has arisen in Singapore not only amongst the people but even amongst enlightened people - people like the Barisan Sosialis. They cannot understand it. Sir, one conception of a merger in the political sense is this. When two parties - A and B - come together, A loses its identity in B or B loses its identity in A, or the two of them get so mixed and so fused that a new identity of C is created. That is what one normally understands by a merger. If only the Prime Minister had told the people of Singapore in the various radio talks and Press conferences that he has had, "This is not a merger. This is not a confederation. This is a constitutional arrangement between the Federation and ourselves. This is the only possible thing which can be achieved at the moment and which will help dampen down the fears of the two territories and bring the two territories closer together," in the hope that the fears which now exist in the minds pf the peoples of the two countries would be dampened down, I think a lot of the acrimonious debate - may I repeat that phrase for the Prime Minister's benefit - a lot of the acrimonious debate -

You believe they will agree by changing the -

Order.

A lot of the acrimonious debate -

Sir, may I, on a point of explanation, -

Order. The Prime Minister knows the Standing Orders just as well as I do. If he wishes for elucidation, all he has to do is to stand up. The Prime Minister rose - Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise for not understanding the weariness which descends upon this House because I have the privilege from time to time of betaking myself off from this Chamber. But I thought that my interjection might help to enliven matters. What I wanted to ask the Member for Farrer Park is whether he believes if we call it by some other name, so long as security is in the hands of the Central Government in the Federation, the Barisan Sosialis would willingly endorse it and be happy?

Sir, the answer is a short one - 'No'.

How do you avoid the acrimonious debate?

All I was interested in, Sir, when I said "acrimonious discussion", was not that I was thinking of the Barisan Sosialis, but I was thinking of the House and you, Mr Speaker. Sir,If only the Prime Minister had said all that, a lot of the fire would have been taken out of the Barisan Sosialis, the matter would then have been looked at in its proper perspective, and we would have been able to discuss it without the acrimony that there was in it. Because it seems the Prime Minister has provided material for argument on the other side - "This is not a merger . This is not a merger, and therefore I will not have anything to do with it." That is the line they have been taking all this time.

Answer it.

Order.

That is the line they have been taking. "If it is a merger, then all Singapore citizens must become Federal citizens. Because it is not so, this is not a merger. Therefore, I do not agree with it. Therefore, I move the amendment, which is the best sort of merger." That is the line we have had all the time, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is as simple as that. And we have been listening to it for 12 days! Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe the Barisan Sosialis in this. Inche Boestamam has said, "There are three alternatives for Singapore. One is a merger, the other is a confederation, and the third is for Singapore to remain a Colony with the Internal Security Council abolished and the British remaining in charge of foreign affairs and defence: Might I ask the Barisan Sosialis: if they are really keen on a merger or a confederation with the Federation of Malaya, how can they, in any honesty, suggest the third proposition? They know what the fear of the Tunku is. It is not a personal fear. Mr Speaker, Sir,It reflects the feelings of the people of the Federation. If we say, "We want a merger because we want to get back to our kith and kin", to whom apparently we have been sold out - Mr Speaker, Sir, we are being sold out to our kith and kin in the Federation, and the Barisan Sosialis do not like that kind of sell-out. 'They do not mind being sold out to somebody else. But if the sell-out is to our kith and kin, they object to it vigorously. But if it is to be a sell-out to British interests, they do not mind that; not a bit. If the third proposition is a genuine, serious political proposition made in all honesty, bona fide, then it is certainly incompatible with proposition one and proposition two. And the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Speaker, Sir, are not political children. They know what they are doing. They know the third proposition is an impossibility. If they mean (1) and (2), it is an impossibility. But if they do not mean (1) and (2) , it is a definite possibility. How will the Tunku react to an independent Singapore without the British? How will the Tunku react to a Singapore with the Internal Security Council in the hands of the local Singapore Government? Of course, the answer possibly could well be that the Tunku has no business to object. But I ask them to give the answer against the background of our wanting to get back to the Federation. This problem, Mr Speaker, must he viewed not with what is absolutely right or what is absolutely wrong, it is not an ethical problem or a problem in politics, but it is a problem against the background of our wanting to get back to the Federation. We must view this problem against that background, and only then provide the answers which will bring us nearer and nearer, and not say that the rights of man are being denied, as, according to the socialist way of thinking, that is wrong, and. according to the Communist way of thinking, that is right. These things do not get us anywhere. Let us be practical about this problem. Let us look at the problem not as Sosialist or Communist or as belonging to this and that political party. I am a Singaporean, and I want to see the right thing done by Singapore. And if, as the Member for Upper Serangoon says, the Communists are going to get a bad deal in the Federation then I am very sorry for them. The Member is not here. The line he was taking was to ask the House what guarantee the Communists will have of security in the Federation. I would like to ask him whether he is a Communist.

I do not think he said that.

Mr Lim Ching Siong has openly declared that he is not a Communist - not to the local papers, I understand, but to the English Press. If Mr Lim Ching Siong has denied that he is a Communist, then he is not a Communist. And if he has stated that he is not a Communist, then I must only assume, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he made that positive statement because he was not a Communist, and he did not like being called a Communist, and that he did not like the foreign Press to think that he was a Communist. It was only on that basis that he made that statement. All that needless is "he is not a Communist." Now, what objection then could the Federation Prime Minister have to Mr Lim Ching Siong participating in the Tunku politics in the Federation? He is not a Communist. He has no objection to Mr David who is a socialist. He has no objection to Mr Seenivasagam who is a Rightist So why worry? He does not object to ultra-Rightists. He does not object to an ultra-Leftists. But he objects to the Communists. Who can say he is wrong? I object to the Communists, Mr Speaker, Sir,I think I am a reasonable man. I will object to anything which seeks to destroy the democratic system. The essence of Communism, as I understand it, is to destroy the democratic system and to build thereafter their society. I object to that. I do not object to their economic creed, where they want every man to be equal economically. It is a very good creed, Mr Speaker, Sir. But when they come to destroying the existing social system, the existing form of government, and then build something on it, I am against it. What then is the point and purpose of breeding Communism in the Federation? Stamp it out. The Tunku is right. But leave the socialists alone. The socialists want to build on the existing system. They use the existing forms of government to build an equal society. That is absolutely correct. That is the form of government we want to fight for. But if it subscribes to a creed which seeks to destroy the existing system of society, the existing system of government, and the existing way of life to which we are all committed, I say, destroy it, Mr Speaker, Sir, and quite rightly too. I agree with the Tunku wholeheartedly on that. If there is anybody who says that such persons should be protected in the Federation and if it is because of that that we are objecting to merger then let him declare himself here and now. It is a pity the Member for Upper Serangoon is not here, because I was going to give him a chance to explain himself. Because he definitely gave me the impression that he was worried about what is going to happen to the Communists if there was to be merger between Singapore and the Federation.

May I explain, Sir? Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

He definitely did not hear the Member for Upper Serangoon correctly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am willing to let the Member for Upper Serangoon explain. He probably is in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Room.

Ask him to come.

If the Member for Queenstown will send for him, I will give way to him, Mr Speaker, Sir. I say this is an important issue which we have to face. [Interruption]

Order.

You can go and call him here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the argument on the other side was that socialists will be trampled upon by the Tunku, and that Mr Lim Ching Siong will be locked up. I am willing to take a bet with the Member for Queenstown that the Tunku is not going to lock up Mr Lim Ching Siong. He is not going to lock up anybody. Unless the overt act of destroying the State is committed, the Tunku is not going to lock up anybody. I know that for a fact.

You know there are overt acts -

If the overt act is committed. Mr Speaker, Sir, then the law must take its course. Mr Speaker, Sir, the two main points the Barisan Sosialis have been making about merger - and I am afraid I must constantly refer to the Barisan Sosialis because they seem to be the ones who propound them - are (1) a phoney merger: and if by a phoney merger they mean a merger which does not mean what is generally understood by "a merger" it says, then I agree with them. But if by a phoney merger they intend to carry across to the people of Singapore that this is something which you must not touch, this is something which will do the people of Singapore more harm than good, then I disagree with them. If that is the impression which the Barisan Sosialis are trying to give by their repeated use of the word "phoney", and if behind that word "phoney" there is a political purpose and intent, that they are trying to smear this arrangement between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government to evoke disgust, then I do not agree with them. But if they mean that the Government has in this connection used the word "merger" in its wrong sense, then I am entirely with them, but not otherwise. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second main point they make is the "sell-out". "It is a sell-out." If you want to sell something to somebody, Mr Speaker, Sir, you must have a buyer, you must have a seller, and you must have a commodity. Now, who is the seller? The seller is the P.A.P. Government headed by the Hon, the Prime Minister. He sells Singapore for $90 million, I was told.

What do I do?

This is a funny kind of sale where we sell to get rid of ourselves. Now, sell to whom, Mr Speaker, Sir? This is where the political angle comes in.

Kith and kin.

Our kith and kin across the Causeway, about a mile long. Who are our kith and kin in the Federation? The Malays - 54 per cent? Or the Chinese - 46 per cent? Who are our kith and who are our kin? Both of them? Right. To whom are Singapore's 70 per cent Chinese being sold? Let us not talk like this. This is a dangerous line of talk. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been in public life, some of us under colonial days, some of us under semi-colonial days, but still in public life. I have always felt, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the first duty of a public leader is not to excite communal passions; not to make any statement which is likely, or remotely likely, to stir up communal passions or communal feelings. Fortunately in Singapore for the last 30, 40 or 50 years, our leaders, he they colonialists, or be they anything you like, have steadfastly avoided the communal line in all issues. They have never made statements publicly and openly which are likely to excite communal passions. Communal passions are there, Mr Speaker, Sir, and let us not kid ourselves. They are there. If only we scratch them, we will see them. And a virulent form too. And I tell my Barisan friends behind us not to make statements either inadvertently or advertently which are likely to cause communal trouble and excite communal feelings. Therefore, let us not talk about selling our kith and kin. Selling our kith and kin to whom, may I ask the Barisan Sosialis? Let us not make these wild statements which are likely to excite the people of Singapore into thinking that somebody is betraying them. Nobody is betraying them, Mr Speaker, Sir. So let us put things in their proper perspective.

You are piping the P.A.P. tune!

Order.

I may be piping the P.A.P. tune, Sir, but in this particular instance the door is the same. We are pushing the same door. Both of us want the same door to open. That is why I am with them. They happen to push the same door that I want to open. But apparently the Barisan Sosialis want another door.

Back door!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said in this House that there are certain areas in the political circle that are national areas, and this door is a national door and I want to go through that door with the P.A.P. or anybody who can take me through that door.

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear!

And I congratulate the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, because it is his great good fortune that he is opening the door a little. It is not because he has done anything. Sir, I do not agree with the Member for Bukit Timah - is it? - who said that it was the Prime Minister who did it.

No, no! It was the Barisan chaps who did it for us!

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I think. He seemed to be trying to down the Member for Cairnhill because the Member for Cairnhill had said, "If I was there, I would have done better than you." Perhaps he might have, Mr Speaker. We do not know. Instead of getting 15 seats, he might have got 20. I accept that. But on the broad issues, Mr Speaker, the picture would have been the same, whether it was the Prime Minister or Tun Lim Yew Hock.

Hear, hear!

Whether it was even the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the picture would have been the same.

It might have been a bit darker!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Member for Queenstown that in five years' time - when he is the Prime Minister of Singapore, and if I should be so fortunate as to be returned to this House again as Member for Farrer Park - if he opens the door a little further, I can assure him now that I will be there pushing the door with him. That is a promise, Mr Speaker, Sir. And I will not be pushing it because I am enamoured of the Member for Queenstown, but because he pushes the same door that I want to push. An hon. Member: Make sure that it is not a swing door!

I will see to it that I go in first! The other matter on which the Barisan Sosialis are trying to confuse the issue is this. I use the word "confuse" advisedly, because, to my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing political in the sense that the Member for Anson has used the word. If we are going to be honest about this, if we want to get across to the people of Singapore what exactly the White Paper means, let us tell them the truth. If it offends the Prime Minister, it does not matter. But let us tell them the truth. Let us not tell untruths which the White Paper does not contain. The Barisan Sosialis Members have said time and again that Singapore citizens are third-class citizens. I think for the last ten days they have said that there are two types of citizens. But today they come up with three classes of citizens.

I said that on the first day. You did not hear it.

Did I not? May be, Mr Speaker, Sir,I do not know. But anyway, this is the first time the point came into my consciousness. Up till now I thought that the point made was that Singapore citizens are either first class or second class. But now we have third-class citizens too. According to the Member for Serangoon Gardens Estate -

Mr Leong Keng Seng is the Member for Serangoon Gardens.

Serangoon Gardens - the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. First of all, Mr Speaker, let me congratulate the Minister for Education for having got rid of him. If that is the sort of advice he was giving to the Minister, if the line of argument he was putting out on this is the sort of advice he was giving to the Minister - An hon. Member: Which he had.

- I can well understand why the Minister for Education now finds himself in this difficulty about 4:2 and 3:3.

He did not take the advice!

It appears to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that his ex-Parliamentary Secretary thought that 4:2 or 3:3 added up to six, therefore it is all the same. 'Therefore, he accordingly advised the Minister who is in the English stream and whose Mathematics is not as good as the Member for Serangoon Gardens'. Hence, the Minister found himself in this difficulty. But I see that he has now somewhat extricated himself out of the trouble which his ex-Parliamentary Secretary brought upon him. Now to come back to the question of citizenship, Mr Speaker, Sir. What exactly do the White Paper proposals contain? Mr Speaker, Sir, this is rather important, because passions are being aroused outside, particularly in places whether people gather and gossip, that Singapore is being sold down the drain and its citizens with it, because they are all going to become second-class citizens.

That is right.

Now third-class citizens have been added to make a distinction between Singapore-born Singapore citizens and Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore. They are to become third-class citizens. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was born in the Federation. I am a Singapore citizen. According to the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, I am going to be a third class citizen. Let me here and now tell him that I can well look after myself. I know what my rights are going to be. I am not going to be a third-class citizen. Under no conditions, Mr Speaker, Sir. Not a third-class citizen. I am going to be a Singapore citizen, not a first-class citizen, nor a second-class citizen, nor a third-class citizen. The truth behind the proposals is that Singapore citizens, as they find themselves today, will remain Singapore citizens. They will exercise all their rights and privileges in Singapore.

Join the P.A.P.!

Order.

Now, Federal citizens remain Federal citizens. They cannot interfere in Singapore. We cannot interfere with them. But to the Federal Parliament, Singapore citizens will vote in Singapore, be they Singapore horn or otherwise. This is the important thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, because it is being put round - I do not know by whom - in coffee-shops - An hon. Member: By the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Queenstown is willing to explain who is putting out these rumours in the coffee-shops, I am quite willing to give way to him.

They are not rumours.

Order.

But most definitely. Mr Speaker, Sir. I know this. We also have people who tell us things; that in the coffee-shops people are saying that if you are a Singapore-born Singapore citizen, you have extra rights. But if you are born in China - it is all China, Mr Speaker, Sir: this non-Singapore horn citizen is only a cloak - and you have become a citizen here, you are absolutely third grade. You are no good. That again is a dangerous line to take. It is naturally a dangerous line to take, because it is not true. A Singapore citizen, be he Singapore born, or born outside Singapore and by virtue of registration has become a Singapore citizen, remains a Singapore citizen for all purposes under this proposal. There is absolutely no difference between the Singapore citizen who was born here and the Singapore citizen who has acquired his citizenship by virtue of registration or naturalisation. But yet, Mr Speaker, responsible educated Chinese have come to me and asked me, "Why are you doing this to us?" So I say, "Who is doing what to you?" They say, "This is what I say. This is what people tell me. I was born in China," he tells me, "I was registered here. I have been living here for the last 50 years. Why should somebody born here have better rights than I have?" I tell him that nobody is depriving him of any of his rights. But he says, "Yes, that is the impression I have got from reading the papers." I ask, "Which papers do you read?" He says. "I read the Chinese papers." An hon. Member: The Barisan Sosialis.

Oh, the Barisan. I did not know they ran a Chinese paper. I am sorry. This is the sort of thing going on in town. If it is going on, I appeal to the responsible leadership in this House - the P.A.P. leadership, the Barisan Sosialis leadership, the Alliance leadership, the Workers' Party leadership and the U.P.P. leadership - to destroy these rumours. They are not true, Mr Speaker.

They are true.

If the White Paper proposals in themselves are wrong - and we are going to debate them - let us tear into them as much as we can. But let us put the thing in its proper perspective against the background of truth, not against the background of lies. Mr Speaker. Sir, I am sure the Member for Upper Serangoon must have been one of the brighter stars on the Government side. I had a great deal of respect for him when he was on the Government side. Whenever he spoke. I always listened to him very carefully because I knew he was one of the brighter stars in the P.A.P. As he has now come across here, possibly the star is if anything a little brighter now, because he has not got to shine amongst other stars. The brighter stars are over there, I always listened to the Member for Upper Serangoon with great interest. After all, I am from the English stream, and I like to listen to people who have been swimming in other streams in order that we might understand each other's point of view. Listening to his arguments, both on the motion and on the amendment - although the leader of the Barisan Sosialis made the point that he wanted merger straightaway as the twelfth State, just like Johore and any other State - (I am afraid to make a forceful statement because the Member for Queenstown might pull me up), I got the idea that the Member for Upper Serangoon was advocating a cause which is not a merger cause. He was expressing fears of the Federation Government getting control of this, that and the other. And he gave his arguments as to why fears in Singapore were being aroused. Now, if the Barisan Sosialis really mean what they say in their amendment, then I cannot see how the Member for Upper Serangoon could have spoken in the way he did. He used such phrases as this, "the Federation's feudalistic and capitalistic Government". How could he entrust the lives of the people of Singapore to a feudalistic and capitalist Government? That was the emotional cry he was making in this Assembly. How then does that tie up with the amendment moved by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown? Sir, it is interesting to note the line which the Member for Queenstown has taken, and the other line which the equally bright star from Upper Serangoon has taken. It becomes more interesting when one reads Mr Urn Ching Siong in the Wartawan, in which he said this. Sir, I am looking for the passage where he said that if only he and his Party were convinced that a certain line was the correct line, then he and his Party were willing to go out into the streets, into the homes and perhaps even into coffeeshops.

Will the Member please quote it?

I will. I just cannot find it at the moment. I have read it, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I will be quoting it.

He will ask them to let education be governed by the Central Government. That is what he said.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, to keep the House waiting like this.

One minute more to the moment of interruption!

This is not a trick to pull it out, Mr Speaker, Sir. I genuinely cannot find it.

Half a minute more!

Here it is. "We explained in detail our stand. We stand -"

Order. Moment of interruption.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye.] Adjourned accordingly at 8.00 o'clock p.m.