Hansard, 1961-12-06

"to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available sitting day after December 1961, and to be printed.

32 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." 2.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the adjournment was taken last night, I was on the question of citizenship and Singapore citizens. To put the matter in its proper perspective, perhaps you might allow me to go into the question of Singapore citizenship and how Singapore citizenship is acquired, because one of the difficulties that the people of Singapore are facing over the question of merger is what will happen to them as Singapore citizens when these so-called constitutional arrangements have been effected. It is not only an important constitutional issue, but even more important from the public point of view, it seems to be an emotional issue. Therefore, it is only fair that this question is completely and fully ventilated in this Assembly. As I understand Singapore citizenship. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is possible to acquire it under four heads: (1) You become a Singapore citizen by birth; (2) You become a Singapore citizen by descent; (3) You become a Singapore citizen by registration; and (4) You become a Singapore citizen by naturalization. Once a person has acquired Singapore citizenship under any of these categories, he is a Singapore citizen, and so far as he is concerned and so long as he remains a Singapore citizen, he has absolutely equal rights. Singapore citizens all have absolutely equal rights one with the other. There is absolutely no question that there is any difference between a Singapore citizen by birth and a Singapore citizen by registration, descent, or naturalization. There is only one difference between these four categories of citizens. First, Mr Speaker. Sir, I would like to emphasize the word "categories" of citizens and not "classes" of citizens. They are not "classes" of citizens, but "categories" of citizens, depending on the manner in which citizenship is acquired. Having acquired it, they are equal and the same in the eyes of the law, constitutionally or otherwise. But there is one important distinction between a citizen by birth and a citizen by descent on the one hand, and a citizen by registration and a citizen by naturalization on the other. Whereas it would be impossible for the Government to deprive a citizen by birth or by descent of his citizenship, it would be possible for the Government to deprive a citizen by naturalization or by registration if the citizen in these latter categories should behave himself in a manner contrary to the interests of the State. That is not a provision peculiar to Singapore. It is a provision which every civilised country has in its laws, because it is only right that when a person is given the privilege of becoming a citizen of a State, he should continue to behave in a manner which will not be to the detriment of the State. Therefore, quite rightly, every civilised State has reserved unto itself the right to deprive a citizen by naturalization or by registration of his citizenship if he should misbehave. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, does not make him a second-class citizen nor a third-class citizen. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a Singapore citizen by registration, having been born in the Federation. I do not, for one moment, consider myself a second-class citizen. My status in the eyes of the law and so far as my rights are concerned are absolutely co-equal with those of a person born in Singapore or of a person whose parent was a Singapore citizen and who was born outside Singapore. Having sketched that, Mr Speaker, then the question arises whether amongst Singapore citizens themselves there is inequality. There is absolutely no inequality. If anybody in Singapore is putting out the proposition that although there are different categories of citizens by virtue of the fact that there are different categories of citizenship, therefore, there are different classes of citizenship, that is an absolute lie calculated to do a great deal of emotional harm, and the motives behind putting out such a proposition cannot be strictly honourable. When these constitutional arrangements go through, Singapore citizens will remain Singapore citizens, and there can be no question that I am going to be a second class citizen. I am absolutely convinced of that. My category is the same as the category of citizens who were born in China or India or Ceylon or any other part of the world, and who, by virtue of adequate residence in Singapore, has acquired citizenship by registration. What happens to me and to people like me who were not born in the Federation but outside the Federation, say, in China, or India or Ceylon or any other part of the world, is this - that we will all remain Singapore citizens and exercise our rights as Singapore citizens in any constitutional arrangements that will have been arrived at between the Federation Government and ourselves. What will then be the net result so far as Singapore citizenship is concerned after -

Merger.

- merger, as the Minister for Finance likes to call it? Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the position, it will be this, that when the State Assembly elections are conducted, I will be allowed a vote; and when the Federal elections are conducted - and for that purpose, I take it, if it is going to be 15 seats, the island of Singapore will be divided into 15 electoral divisions, or wards as the case may be - and if I should so desire, I can offer myself for election. What is more, I can vote for myself, if I choose to stand in the ward where my name appears on the register. Where then does the proposition propounded by the Barisan Sosialis come in about second-class citizenship? If the proposition is that a Singapore citizen becomes a second-class citizen by virtue of the fact that he is not allowed to vote in the Federation or to stand for election in the Federation, and if that and that only is the reason for stating the proposition that Singapore citizens are second-class citizens, then might I suggest to the Barisan Sosialis, if they look at it from the Federation point of view, that a Federal citizen could equally say then that because he is not allowed to stand for election in Singapore or to vote in Singapore, he himself is a second-class citizen. The proposition is too absurd to be contemplated. Why then do we labour the point that the Singapore citizen is inferior to the Federal citizen? Can it be that my friend, the Member for Queenstown, has a complex about himself? Has he a complex that a Singapore citizen is inferior to a Federal citizen? Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself have no such complex. I feel that I am equal to the Federal citizen, if not superior. And why should I not feel it if I am so inclined to feel it? I do not think the Federation Prime Minister is going to object to my thinking that I am superior and that Singapore citizenship is superior to Federal citizenship. It is a matter of opinion and I am entitled to mine. But if the Barisan Sosialis propounds as a fact that Singapore citizenship is inferior to Federal citizenship, that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not true. It is not correct. I was rung up this morning by a number of people. They said, "We were very glad you clarified this point because we were in doubt." A further point was asked of me: can a Singapore citizen sit in the Federal Parliament? I said, "Surely you have read the White Paper; surely it has all been explained." It is amazing, Mr Speaker, Sir, the amount of ignorance there is in Singapore about these matters, and as a result of this ignorance, a lot of misunderstandings are current. I said, "Of course, if you feel so inclined, if you wish to stand for election to the Federal Parliament, you will be entitled to do so. There is nothing in the White Paper which I can see which goes against it. In fact, if I remember rightly, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an express statement to that effect. In paragraph 14, page 4 of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961, it reads: 'Singapore citizens will vote in Singapore for their representatives to the new Federation Parliament and the citizens of the present Federation of Malaya will vote in the present Federation for their representatives to the same new Federation Parliament.' From that paragraph it seems to me obvious that Singapore citizens will vote and can stand in Singapore in respect of the 15 constituencies which will send their representatives to the Federal Parliament. Even from that point of view, there is no question of a second-class citizenship. A further question was raised whether the words "Federal national" have been introduced into these proceedings with a view to confusing the issues and that a Federal national is not really a Federal national; he might be a British subject, and, therefore, being a British subject it is something derogatory. I think it was the Member for Anson who took the view that a Federal national really equates to a British subject. Mr Speaker, Sir, all that the White Paper says is this. A Singapore citizen and a Federal citizen will both become Federal nationals. At the moment the phrase "Federal national" is not known to the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. I take it that it will be necessary to amend the Constitution to give the phrase a place in the statute. I take it that it will be done. Once that is done, then the term "Federal national" has a constitutional significance, and under the Federation Constitution, a Federal national will be a Commonwealth citizen and not a British subject. The British are wise people. They amended their British Nationality Laws - I think it was in 1947 or 1948; I cannot remember the exact date - because, in their wisdom, they knew that the term "British subject" was not viewed with favour by people in the Dominions, and therefore they devised an arrangement under their British Nationality Laws and coined a new phrase "Commonwealth citizen". So that a Federal national will become a Commonwealth citizen. Now a Commonwealth citizen will have the status of a British subject. Therefore, the Member for Anson argued that if he has the status of a British subject, he is then a British subject. With great respect to the Member for Anson - he is my senior in many ways - I beg to disagree with him. Having the status of a British subject does not necessarily mean that you are a British subject. What it means is this, that if you should happen to be in Great Britain, then having the status of a British subject would entitle you to all the privileges that a British subject would enjoy in the British Isles. That is all it means, Mr Speaker, Sir. If I may make my point clearer and bring it home to the Member for Anson. Recently we have read in the papers that Japanese nationals will be given the status of South Africans in South Africa when they are in South Africa. I ask the Member for Anson, does he, in all seriousness, advance the argument that because of this that Japanese nationals will become south African subjects? I think the Japanese people will be the first to disavow it. What it merely means is this. If Japanese nationals have been given by the South African Government in their wisdom the status of South Africans in South Africa, it merely means that they can ride with the whites in their buses; and if the Japanese want it that way, they are welcome to it. Why should we object? I also understand from the papers that the People's Republic of China has applied for that status. Both the extreme Right and the extreme Left in Asia want the status of South Africans, and if they want it, Mr Speaker, Sir, who are we to say that it is a derogatory status? But the curious position is this. We have heard a lot about the Afro-Asian conferences. It is a bit peculiar when two nations in Asia - one on the extreme Right and the other on the extreme Left - should seek the status of South Africans. So it is difficult to know where we are in this modern world. The extreme Right and the extreme Left want to ride in the same bus as a South African, but they do not want to ride with their black brothers. So when we talk about Socialism and the extreme Right, I, as one who does not subscribe to any such particular political philosophy, am a bit confused. But that is only by the way. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not say that a Singapore citizen is a second-class citizen. Let us not even go one better and say third-class citizens. This category was introduced yesterday. The point was made that a Federal citizen is a first-class citizen, a Singapore citizen is a second-class citizen. Yesterday the point was made that there are third-class citizens. The point and purpose of that statement was to draw a difference between Singapore citizens by birth and by registration. According to some Members of the Barisan Sosialis, it seems that citizens by registration are third-class citizens, and in that category is your humble servant. I do not accept that statement. It is not true. It is not right. I would like Members of the Barisan Sosialis to quote chapter and verse because I am personally vitally interested in that issue, because if any constitutional arrangement arrived at by the Hon, the Prime Minister with the Federation Prime Minister were to make me into a third-class citizen, I would be the first to object to it. An hon. Member: You have an alliance with the P.A.P.!

We are no citizens at all in the Federation.

Order. If hon. Members wish for elucidation, all they have to do is to stand up and I am sure the Member for Farrer Park will oblige.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I have made any mis-statements on the law, if I have misconceived the position, if I have made any wrong statements to this House, if any Member, either on the Front Benches or on the Back Benches on the Government side or on the Front Benches or on the Back Benches on the Opposition side, says I am talking nonsense and I am wrong in any of my statements, I am quite prepared to give way so that the House will be given a full explanation, of the true factual and legal position resulting from these constitutional arrangements. I await that, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I will gladly resume my seat and give them the Floor. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to stay very much longer on the Floor. There are other important issues to be discussed and I hope I am confining myself strictly to the amendment. I will have something more to say when the main motion is debated. On the adjournment yesterday, I was fumbling around with the Wartawan to find a statement made by Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, to the effect that he and his Party were willing to go to the people of Singapore to explain to them the whole position and obtain their support. Now that is a tall statement for anyone to make. For one person to say that he can convince the people of Singapore, I envy him if he can do that. But if he exercises that power in the right direction, he will do a power of good for this country and I have every confidence that his intention is to do a power of good to this country. But to put the record clear and right, let me quote him: 'We are fully aware of the difficulties that face us in our struggle for Malayan unity. As a result of colonial rule, differences of race and religion have been emphasised and much work will be needed to repair the damage done by colonialism. However, we declare that if the representatives of the people of the Federation are agreeable to do the same-' this is the place, Mr Speaker, Sir: 'we will pledge ourselves to exert whole-heartedly our influence to win the people of Singapore to accept full and complete merger forthwith, that is, with Singapore as the twelfth State of the Federation and with Singapore citizens automatically becoming Malayan citizens with proportional representation in the Federation Parliament. Let the Government of the Federation of Malaya tell us if it is prepared to persuade the people of the Federation to accept the people of Singapore in a full and complete merger before 1963.' Now let us examine the psychological situation against which such a statement is made.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

I am sorry to intervene at this stage. I thought the Member was going on with the question of citizenship. Would the speaker agree - I have not got the documents with me but I have quoted them - that in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya there is an express provision that only Federal citizens may sit both in the House and in the Senate, and in the White Paper it is perfectly consistent with our voting for Federal citizens who will then represent us? Secondly, would the Member agree that all Commonwealth citizens under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1948, are in fact British nationals?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret the Member for Anson was not listening to me carefully. You see, Sir, how difficult it is to get a point across. How can the people in the coffee-shops understand anything when the Member for Anson, who is himself a trained lawyer, and I myself - I hope that I can say that I am a trained lawyer - used to the use of words, are trying to put words together in a manner which people will understand? If I cannot get myself across to him and he cannot get himself across to me, we can see how difficult the position of the man in the coffee-shop is. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already told the House that at the moment the phrase "Federal national" is not known to the Federal Constitution - at least I have not seen it in the Federal Constitution. As this is a phrase coined as a result of these constitutional arrangements, it will therefore become necessary - I have told the House; I may be wrong -

Surely it must be so.

- it will become necessary to amend the Federal Constitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson must know all this. Let us not look at the Federal Constitution as something which is going to be static. It follows the will of the people. No constitution is static. It moves with the will of the people, and if the will of the people is that this Constitution is to be amended, it will be amended; and it will be amended to this effect, that wherever the phrase "Federal citizen" appears, the phrase "Federal national" shall be substituted. That is only my suggestion. They might amend it in some other way. But certainly the Constitution must be amended to carry with it the conception of a Federal national and to give it statutory effect and legal concept. That must be done. I cannot, therefore, understand the Member for Anson saying that because the Constitution now does not have the phrase "Federal national", how can Singapore citizens sit in the Federal Assembly? If this Constitution is amended to bring in the phrase "Federal national", and because a Singapore citizen is a Federal national, therefore, by virtue of the fact that he is a Federal national, he is entitled to sit in the Federal Parliament. Surely it is a simple proposition. I would have thought that the Member for Anson would have been the first to understand it. If he cannot understand it, how much more difficult it is going to be for persons in the coffee-shops to understand it. And I beg of the Government, if they are serious in these constitutional arrangements - and they are of vital importance to the country - that they put this across to the people. They do not understand it, Mr Speaker. If the Member for Anson cannot understand it -

He does not want to!

Does not want to? No, I do not say that. How can that be? He is a patriot.

Hear hear!

Point of elucidation, Mr Speaker. Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

I am very much obliged. Sir, this is very important. Is the speaker, in fact, stating -

Member.

I beg your pardon. Is the Member, in fact, stating that he is satisfied that wherever the words "Federal citizen" appear in the Federal Constitution, the words "Federal national" will be substituted? Because if that is so, it makes a complete change in my own stand. I am sorry I am stupid. But if I am given an assurance that wherever in the Federal Constitution the words "Federal national" appear, sections 8, 10, 82, wherever the words "Federal citizen" appear, the words "Federal national" will be substituted, I will vote for the White Paper.

I am so glad we have now clarified the position because I am entirely with the Member for Anson. If the Constitution is not going to be amended to make me a Federal National, co-equal with a Federal citizen for purposes of sitting in the Federal Parliament, then I will certainly vote against the White Paper. Why should I vote for it? It is on that understanding and on that basis that I am supporting the White Paper. And let me tell the Member for Anson through you, Sir, that if under this Constitution there are certain things which are pertinent to the rights of man, then I sincerely hope that the rights of man in the Federation and in Singapore will be co-equal. I do sincerely hope that.

That is so.

That must be so. Otherwise, there can be no constitutional arrangements. There can be no equality of status. I am supporting this entirely on that basis - that the rights of man in Singapore and the rights of man in the Federation co-equate and are co-equal, and interchangeable. The Federal citizen can come here and the Singapore citizen can go there. But they cannot go into each other's territory for purposes of exercising the vote. That is the constitutional arrangement for the time being. When the psychology of the two territories changes, then possibly there need not be a Federal citizen and a Singapore citizen. But that is not possible now. Let us hope it will be within our lifetime anyway. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am almost finished, but there are one or two points I would like to stress to the House. Sir, there is one phrase used by the Member for Upper Serangoon.

He is not here.

The Member for Upper Serangoon is not here. He is such an important adjunct in the Barisan Sosialis system of things that I would have liked him to be here in order to pose this problem to him. Mr Speaker, Sir, when he was speaking yesterday in this House, he said this, "The people of Singapore like socialism." There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is the fashion nowadays to be a socialist. And who does not want to be in the fashion, whether to be in a bush jacket, without a tie, or with a tie? The three classes are well represented here, Mr Speaker.

Three classes of socialists.

By that I do not mean three classes of citizens. They are still co-equal, I hope. He went on to say what struck me as something very interesting - "especially for the Chinese." Mr Speaker, this is the sort of thing that really gets me down. What is this brief "especially for the Chinese"? The Member for Thomson is not a Chinese. The Member for Bukit Timah is not a Chinese.

The Parliamentary Secretary.

I beg your pardon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is not a Chinese. Mr Devan Nair is not a Chinese.

Mr Byrne is not a Chinese.

Mr Byrne is not a Chinese. An hon. Member: The Minister for Law!

The Minister for Law is not a Chinese.

The Minister for Culture.

The Minister for Culture, one of the ablest spokesmen, rather more able than the Member for Thomson, is not a Chinese. The Vice-Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis is not a Chinese.

The Member for Anson.

Yes, he is not a Chinese. My Chinese friends, I hope, will forgive me if I tell them that some of the ablest spokesmen for socialism in Malaya are non-Chinese.

Not for Communism, you know.

Sir, why then do we draw this red herring - "especially for the Chinese"? What does the Member for Upper Serangoon mean by that? If you are a socialist, you are a socialist.

Yes.

And I thought that one of the basic tenets of socialism is that once you are a true socialist, you cease to be a Chinese or an Indian. You are an internationalist.

No, that is not true after the 22nd Congress.

I do not know about this Congress. My theory is that way back one of the basic tenets of socialism is the international creed. Once you are a socialist, you have no race, no creed, no country. Why talk about the Chinese? Mr Speaker, Sir, a socialist is not a chauvinist. And if a socialist talks like a chauvinist, what does one make of him? Mr Speaker, Sir, there is just one last thing I wish to state. The proposals before the House on the question of merger and the other allied motions that are being discussed are in the nature of temporary measures. They have not reached any form of finality. It is just an immediate step to something which we want in the future. With that intent and purpose, that seems to be the position. I give notice now that when the proper time comes, Mr Speaker, I shall move an amendment to item 3 on the Order Paper, under the name of the Hon, the Prime Minister - White Paper on Reunification of Singapore and Federation of Malaya: 'That this House, accepts the heads of agreement set out in'

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are discussing the amendment. Surely we cannot at this stage, before the amendment is passed, deal with item 3?

Order. I understood the Member for Farrer Park just to indicate what he is going to do. Of course, he will not be able to discuss his amendment now.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is exactly my intention. I give notice now, after which I shall sit down. '...agreed to between the Governments of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories.' The amendment which I intend to propose, Mr Speaker, will be this: After the word "That", to insert: "as an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger," 'this House accepts the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 agreed to between the Governments of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories.' The point and purpose of the amendment, Mr Speaker, is to throw the debate into proper focus. 3.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish first to address myself to the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown. There are two parts to his amendment. First, that Singapore should merge with the Federation of Malaya as the twelfth State; second, that all Singapore citizens should automatically become Federation citizens. May I first deal with the first limb of the amendment - that Singapore should be the twelfth State of the Federation? Let me refer him to a joint statement issued on 16th September this year by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and myself. That statement said: 'The two Prime Ministers are satisfied that all legitimate local and special interests of the people in the two territories can and will be safeguarded with the merger of Singapore as a State within the Federation.' I want to emphasise these words, Sir - "merger of Singapore as a State within the Federation". These are not casual words uttered at Press Conferences or in conversations. These are words carefully chosen after scrutiny by officials of both sides. They carry with them the full import of their ordinary meaning. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Singapore will be the twelfth State of the new Federation. I do not know whether there is any special virtue in being the 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th State, but I can assure hon. Members that if it is the number 13 that they are against, perhaps for some unhappy connotation of the Barisan Sosialis and so on, I shall ensure that we shall take pride of place before the Borneo territories. There has been considerable play over the word "merger". Members of the Opposition have for various reasons alleged that the proposals contained in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 do not constitute a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. There was some talk of complete merger like Penang and Malacca. The Barisan Sosialis talked of it. Others talked of absolute merger, whatever that may mean. It is useful to note the title of the Memorandum which contains the Heads of Agreement agreed to between the Prime Minister of the Federation and ourselves. It reads: 'MEMORANDUM SETTING OUT HEADS OF AGREEMENT FOR A MERGER BETWEEN THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA AND SINGAPORE'. Not what I said, Sir, but what the Tunku and I jointly said. The joint statement issued in London at the end of the Tunku's first series of discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - I am quoting now from the official communique - says: 'The Minister [U.K. and Federation of Malaya Ministers] took note with satisfaction of the heads of agreement recently negotiated between the Governments of Malaya and Singapore for merging Singapore with the Federation.' Three Ministers of the Federation of Malaya Government - the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Finance Minister - and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom together with the Secretaries of State, for Commonwealth Relations, for the Colonies, and for Defence - one Scots man and three Englishmen - have described these heads of agreement as merging Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. Sir, I did not take the liberty of bringing in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary into this Chamber, but I trust Members will believe me when I say that my secretary has accurately copied the definition of "merger" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. "Merger", it says, means "combine or to merge." And the word "merge" is defined as "to cause something to lose its own character or identity in something else."

Singapore citizenship.

That is right. They shall both lose their identity for Pan-Malayan purpose as nationals of the new Federation. It is no use shaking heads. I have documents written from the pen with green ink of the former Chief Minister of Singapore who referred to "nationals" of Singapore. We learned from him, Sir, as we learn from everybody else. Sir, it is part of the problems of the Communists that they have to find metaphysical arguments to explain why a merger is not a merger. They have agreed to merger on principle. For years, since 1945, they have agreed with us on this in their written documents, which we have published from time to time and will republish. But they cannot afford to admit that the heads of agreement contained in this Command Paper are a merger without, at the same time, having to accept them and having to land themselves in an impossible position. For the furtherance of the Communist cause, it would be an impossible position. But not for the furtherance of the socialist democratic cause. Members on the other side, particularly Members of the Barisan Sosialis, have termed these conditions as the P.A.P. type of merger. Merger requires two parties to an agreement. The proposals contained in this White Paper are no more the P.A.P. type than the Tunku's type of merger. If it were all purely P.A.P., there would have been a different White Paper. If it were all purely Tunku, there would also have been a very different White Paper. But this White Paper represents the widest consensus of opinion after thorough and frank discussions. It represents how we believe merger can be achieved with the least possible upset for either side. I have waded through 12 days of this merger debate and I have not heard anybody nor read anybody having the temerity to call this the Tunku type of merger and then set out to tear it to pieces.

He is not responsible to us.

Yes, Sir, how kind, courteous, correct and proper! But may I suggest that when they talk of feudalistic leaders and so on, obviously they are not inhibited by these considerations in this House or outside? I will say that whatever the follies and the errors of the Barisan Sosialis, they not understand the realities of power. Sir, the P.A.P. Government is a democratic and tolerant Government. More important, the Federation Government is also a democratic and tolerant Government. But more important from the Communist point of view, the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist friends understand that the P.A.P. Government has no Congo-seasoned troops to deal with any emergency which they can create. But the Federation Government has. We have only got 817 soldiers in the S.I.R. to back our will. And from the point of view of Leninist revolution,, it is an easy Government to deal with. There are only 817 soldiers under the joint control of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the U.K. Commission. Sir, I had occasion to describe the Member for Nee Soon, as one of the most intelligent of the Barisan Sosialis Members -

One of the brightest Barisan stars.

He is one of the brightest stars. He showed his brightness when he called the Tunku in this Chamber "a statesman". Sir, the smiling, friendly Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya is what the Malays call him, "Papa Kemerdekaan". The Member for Nee Soon obviously understands that the Tunku has sufficient battalions of troops and jungle bashing policemen to ensure that the people of Malaya can afford to relax, smile and laugh, despite the venom and the frustration of the Communists. Mr Khrushchev from time to time beats up Albania. Instead of taking on Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese, he takes up General Hoxha and the Albanians. He abuses, castigates and threatens Albania. But the whole world knows that what he wants to do is to abuse, castigate and threaten, not small Albania, but big China. Unfortunately for Mr Khrushchev, big China takes no notice of him. So like Mr Khrushchev, the Barisan Sosialis, I am sorry to hear, are still taking the old Russian line instead of getting modern and catching up with the Chinese line. The Barisan Sosialis have gone on abusing the proposals in Cmd. Paper 33 as the P.A.P. type merger. Sir, we do not mind being little Albania for brave men from the Barisan Sosialis - revolutionaries who talk fiercely of dealing with the gentle P.A.P. Government in Singapore, while they coo about statesmen in Kuala Lumpur, hoping thereby that the statesmen in Kuala Lumpur may be kind to them when the time for final settlement comes. But I wonder, Sir, whether merely a few sweet words with no supporting action to prove the sincerity of those words will deceive anybody, either in Singapore or in Kuala Lumpur. I can assure the Member for Queenstown, who I hope will inform the Member for Nee Soon, that the people in Kuala Lumpur are as knowledgeable of the ways of the Communists as the people in Singapore. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis may find this out to their great cost when the day for reckoning comes.

You hope so?

Sir, I have expected Members of the Barisan Sosialis to spout the Communist line and say that whatever we propose is phoney. I even expected the Member for Anson to appeal in the name of decency, from human beings to human beings, not to corrupt the word "merger". He used the word "corrupt". A sacred word, said he. And it is. It is the political battle-cry that has kept the nationalists, the Communists, and all the other anti-colonialists together all these long years. He said that we corrupted that word when we described it, not I, Sir, the Tunku and I - "China" and "Albania" - described these heads of agreement for a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. But these are people who are not particularly precise with their use of words. The Barisan Sosialis - sometimes, but not always. Only sometimes is the Member for Anson not precise. Usually he is precise, Sir,I remember once we were entertained to an extremely scholarly treatise on the meaning of "on the advice of" or "after consultation with" in this Chamber. You will remember, Sir, that we were all refreshed in our knowledge of the law as a result of it. But when people get abusive, after they have lost the argument, they cease to be precise about the use of words. Sir, I was disappointed to hear the Member for Farrer Park yesterday. He always tries to be precise in his words, lie spent a great deal of time yesterday arguing that the merger is not a merger. Sir, I cannot agree with him. It is not for me to tell him the meaning of meaning. He has no doubt read a scholarly book entitled, "The meaning of meaning". A great deal of clear thinking is necessary over this very simple subject. The book is so common and sensible as to become quite erudite. The Member for Farrer Park will recall, in "Alice through the looking glass", what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice. "When I use a word," said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice [That is me] "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master. That is all." Sir, when I first started the study of law some years ago, the first few lessons I had to study were entitled, "Language and the Law". A brilliant teacher expounded to me with considerable lucidity the importance of being precise in the terms we use. These lessons, for the benefit of the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Anson, were later published. I think it was contemporaneously published in the Law Quarterly Review, "Language and the Law" - Glanville L. Williams, 1945, Law Q.R. The first lesson was devoted to explaining that any word can have three possible meanings. First, the speaker using the word intends it to mean. Second, what the meaning which the listener hearing it interprets it to mean. Third, the meaning commonly or widely accepted of the word by the majority of the people. Sir, let us take this simple word "peace". When Mr Khrushchev talks of "world peace", he means a situation in which his enemies in the Western world are slowly crumbling and decaying under the pressure of Soviet technological and economic advance and the pressure of Soviet propaganda, and with all the present neutral countries joining or slowly won over to his Communist camp. When President Kennedy hears Mr Khrushchev talk of "world peace", he understands peace differently. To him, peace means a situation where the capitalist world is naturally expanding by the process of free competition based on the inter-play of selfish individual motives, and a situation in which the Communists are contained in a tight concord of pro-Western and anti-Communist allies, and from time to time satellite countries like Hungary and Poland break out in successful revolts against the Russian tyrannical masters. So that a simple word like "peace", when Khrushchev says it, means to him one thing. Kennedy listening to it immediately thinks of another, and the majority of the people in the world understand it quite differently. When they think of peace, they want a situation where the diabolical and ruthless process of struggle and attrition between the Communist and the Capitalists worlds, where one system is intent on destroying the other, ceases, and human ingenuity and intelligence ate spent on fruitful research to make life happier and more meaningful for everyone without fear of war or the threat of war. So Mr Speaker, Sir, a simple word like "peace" can mean three different things: 1. To Mr Khrushchev when he uses it. 2. To Mr Kennedy when he hears Mr Khrushchev use it. 3. To the vast majority of mankind who understand it to mean what it ordinarily mean. In the same way, Sir, as the Member for Farrer Park used the word "merger". When he said it, he meant merger like Penang or Malacca, Johore or Perak, or any one of the other 11 States in the Federation. Any variation from these terms giving Singapore more reserved powers and preserving the rights of Singapore citizens who are otherwise not qualified for citizenship under the laws of citizenship of the Federation and, at the same time, giving them automatically the nationality of the new Federation, he does not understand that to be merger. Sir, when the Barisan Sosialis first talked of merger, they meant merger like Penang and Malacca. Since then they discovered what happened in Penang and Malacca, and they have added the second rider to their amendment about automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federal citizens. What the Barisan Sosialis, in fact, say, on behalf of their Communist backroom boys, is that they want merger like Penang and Malacca, and then just in case that should be acceptable to the Tunku and his Government, they ask for automatic conversion; and in case automatic conversion is also acceptable, they ask for something else; until finally, impossible terms are asked, the Tunku refuses, merger is frustrated, and the Communists carry on with Singapore, with the Singapore Government to deal with, in other words, only 817 S.I.R. soldiers under the joint control of the wicked colonialists and us. Sir, when we used the word "merger", we did not intend to give any special meaning to it. We have used this word in the widely and commonly understood meaning of the word -

Take-over bid!

Take over? By whom?

On a point of elucidation.

Yes.

I have been given the opportunity to elucidate. I am much obliged. This White Paper is a take over bid of Singapore equivalent to armistice terms on a defeated people whereby we are handed over hand and foot, bound with a little tube attached to our jugular vein in order to transfuse a quarter of our blood as we produce it. Those are the terms. There is not a single territory in the whole of -

Order. That is enough. I suppose the Member for Anson will have an opportunity of enlarging on that theme when we come to debate the main motion.

Sir, the Member for Anson does not know how grateful he must be to you. He went to Australia very recently, Sir. He has sterling qualities. He is a human being with a generosity of heart in a warm moment, and often I have been the beneficiary of that human warmth. But from time to time the warmth turns to heat and the thermostat control is lost and the whistle starts to blow. One such occasion was when he landed, I think, in Melbourne or Sydney -

Order. Let us not get into those details. The Member for Anson has talked about the jugular vein. Now the Prime Minister is talking about whistles and so on. Let us go back now to the amendment.

How true, Sir. The point is this. Never say these weighty things in haste, for whoever says it in haste may have cause to regret it at leisure. I am not qualified to give advice to those who are more senior than I am in the affairs of this world, but I do beseech the Member for Anson - and I do know what happened and so does he - do not say these reckless things. It brings about a chain of consequences which can be quite unpleasant. Sir, all I need say is this - I have not had the time to look up the library's Who's Who about the Prime Minister in the United Kingdom and the three Cabinet Ministers - but assuming that the Prime Minister is English, then I have three Englishmen and one Scotsman on my side, Sir. Although I may not be an Englishman, I am quite prepared to accept a Scotsman's definition of an English word -

Irish is better!

Irish? Better still, yes. Sir, may I draw the attention of Members of this House to paragraph 5 of the memorandum? These are operative provisions, Sir, apart from the title: 'The State of Singapore Singapore will be a State within the Federation but on special conditions and with a larger measure of local autonomy than the other States forming the Federation.' Sir, how can Singapore go into the Federation if it does not go in as a State? It must go in as a State. I do not know whether Brunei will beat us to it.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Surely.

Could I refer him to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech - his Government's policy statement [Hansard, 31st October, 1961, Vol. 15, No. 1, col. 11]: 'The people must know that these interests cannot be protected in a complete merger as a 12th State like one of the other 11 States of the present Federation...'.

True, Sir, "like one of the 11 States of the Federation", because "like one of the 11 States of the Federation" means no reserved powers - [Interruption]. You go in as a twelfth -

Order. I think it is correct if the Member for Anson will read the whole paragraph, because reading part of it out of context might - I do not know - be misleading. It is in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, col 11 - the whole of the paragraph.

This is the paragraph, Sir, in col. 11, 31st October, 1961: 'The people must know that these interests cannot be protected in a complete merger as a 12th State like one of the other 11 States of the present Federation, for then automatically all these matters will be controlled by the Central Government and must follow the pattern of what happened in the 11th States of the present Federation of Malaya.'

That is the point, Sir. We are dealing with honest people like the Member for Anson. We will not mind telling him what is coming in the next chapter. But dealing with the backroom boys of the Barisan Sosialis, when we say we cannot have a twelfth State like the other 11 States, they say, "Ah, well, since we can't have that, then we ask for it," and they immediately put in an amendment - twelfth State and automatic conversion. We will give them twelfth State and they will know the reality of merger when the British flag comes down and the flag of the new Federation goes up and those operative provisions of the Schedule take effect. In all fairness, I must mention the play that the Opposition has made of what the Tunku has said about close association and partnership. The Tunku understands the uneasiness of the Malays in the Federation with regard to the taking in of slightly over one million Chinese from Singapore, and absorbing them into the new Federation, and more particularly, because of the Press reports or organised misbehaviour by Chinese school students and Chinese workers from time to time, thereby making the rural Malays apprehensive of becoming engulfed and swamped by the addition of more Chinese from Singapore into the Federation of Malaya. This is nothing new. We have analysed it all in our 4th Anniversary Souvenir number, which I heard the Member for Queenstown react with gusto and endorse with great approval. Here are the honest unpleasant truths, Sir. So from time to time the Tunku has gone out of his way to stress the differences of the conditions of merger between Singapore and the Federation and those of the other States of the Federation. It is not for me to say why, but I would suggest that perhaps in this way Malay fears can be lessened or allayed. The words "close association between Singapore and the Federation". Sir, by whatever name, whether we call it "close association", "complete merger", "absolute merger", all must agree that the proposals contained in Paper Cmd. 33 mean that the British flag will be removed from Singapore, other than for the bases (where there will be special arrangements made), and we shall, in future, fly the flag of the new Federation, play the anthem of the new Federation, and display the symbols of the new Federation. Singapore citizens wherever born, whether they were born in Singapore or China or India, will, as nationals of the new Federation, vote in Singapore for 15 representatives direct to the Central Parliament of the new Federation, just as the present Federation citizens will, also as nationals of the new Federation, vote in the present Federation for their representatives to the same Parliament; and there together, the representatives of the people from Singapore and the Federation will deliberate on policy, legislation and the welfare of all the people of the whole of the new Federation. Sir, let me ask the Member for Farrer Park this metaphysical question, a very simple little exercise: At what point does close association become so close that it becomes complete merger? And conversely, when is complete merger made not so complete by the reservation to the State of large powers of education, labour, social welfare, health and other matters as proposed for Singapore, so as to make a merger a close association? These are witch words, Mr Speaker, Sir. Whatever anybody likes to call them, one thing is quite clear. The Communists understand these arrangements will thwart their plot. Their plot is to use Singapore as a base for a Communist ideological and propaganda offensive and, ultimately, as the Tunku has said, a military offensive against the Federation, and then we will get a genuine Communist merger, not of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, but of the Federation of Malaya into Singapore. As long as the merger proposals defeat their interests, we must expect them to oppose them although they may be in the interests of the people. So I say to the House, let us not use words as Humpty Dumpty uses them, to make them mean what Humpty Dumpty intends them to mean.

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear! But let us use the commonly and widely accepted meaning of the word.

Hear, hear!

I would ask Members to resort to the Oxford Dictionary and to Webster's Dictionary which are available in the Library of the House. Sir, the Member for Hong Lim is in a singularly happy position of not being responsible. He says, "Ah, the Government is responsible." Then he says, "Ah, Barisan Sosialis, I am not getting mixed up with you. You do not protect students. I will become the leader and champion." Mind you, Sir, in the end, it all depends on who has got more trumps in his hand. We will come to that by and by. An hon. Member: Joker!

Yes, or the joker. The Member for Hong Lim referred to the heads of agreement as making Singapore only an associate member of the Federation club. Let me draw attention - his attention in particular - to a few points on which I hope he will be able to enlighten us whether he persists in these allegations. First, all citizens of Singapore will automatically, as Federation nationals, vote 15 representatives direct to the Parliament of the new Federation. Sir, anyone of these 15 representatives, as nationals of the new Federation representing the people of the new Federation from Singapore in Parliament, can become a Minister of the Government of the new Federation. According to the Constitution of the new Federation, there is nothing to stop a Singapore citizen, by virtue of automatically becoming a national of the new Federation, from becoming the Prime Minister of the new Federation of Malaysia. This is so whether he is a Singapore citizen born in Singapore or a Singapore citizen born in China, India or elsewhere and who has acquired Singapore citizenship by registration. I am making statements which are advisely made. I do not make these things in my capacity as one of the signatories to this Command Paper. This is the natural interpretation to be spelt out of the Command Paper. I give the Member for Anson my categorical assurance that we shall see enshrined in it that he, a Singapore citizen born here - or even as malicious rumour has it that he was not born here but in Baghdad - has the right to be the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia.

That is what you want.

No, Sir. May I say, Sir, that I do not have to read the horoscope?

He can go to the United Nations now!

Sir, I do not have to read the horoscope for it to tell me that for a very long time, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia will be Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj. The Member for Nee Soon understands that and he is a very bright boy. Sir, from time to time, the Tunku has been talking about his heavy duties as Prime Minister and he talks of giving way to younger men. I have a feeling that he will be there for a long time, much to the unhappiness of the Communists, and when he finally retires -

On a point of clarification, Sir. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister is very good and I am appreciative. He has told us that there will be a change in the Constitution to enable Singapore citizens to be Ministers and to sit in Parliament. Perhaps he could complete that, Sir, and inform us whether the Member for Farrer Park was right in indicating that the new Constitution would substitute the words "Federal national" for "Federal citizen" wherever they appear.

That is so, Sir. Wherever the words "Federal citizen" appear, the words "Federal national" will be substituted, except in Part III which talks about the qualifications of how one becomes a Federal citizen, because that will have to remain for the Federation side and Singapore citizens will have to come in. I do not want to anticipate events, but I suggest that it will not be long when we will have to amend our Singapore citizenship laws to be on par with the Federation citizenship laws, otherwise one can become a Federal national easier via Singapore than via the Federation, and then a little bit of blackmarketing may go on. I would suggest that that must be so, and it is the logical significance if I may spell out these things from paragraph 14 of the White Paper: 'All Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship and automatically become nationals of the larger Federation. Citizens of the present Federation will similarly become nationals of the larger Federation. Nationals of the larger Federation, whether Singapore citizens or the Federation citizens, will as nationals have equal rights, carry the same passport, enjoy the same protection and be subject to the equal duties and responsibilities under the Constitution of the larger Federation. Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their State rights and privileges within Singapore [in other words, education, labour, and so on].' Once in Parliament, there is nothing to stop any Member of this House who becomes a Member of Parliament of the Federation of Malaysia from becoming a Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or even Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia. Equal rights mean what it says there. Sir, I have heard great tributes paid by Members opposite to the capacity for frankness, the qualities of truth and statesmanship of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Sir, like little Albania, may I say that he signed this document, and I have every reason to believe that he will honour every word of it?

Do you honour your own words?

Every word of it, Sir. I give my personal undertaking, for whatever it is worth, to the Member for Anson who keeps on telling the world that he feels very sorry every time he believes the P.A.P.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

If the Prime Minister will give way. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

If it please you, Sir, this has been most helpful and I appreciate your consent. The Federal Constitution gives constitutional protection, right of residence, right of work, right of freedom of association and freedom of speech in the Federation - only to Federal citizens. What does the Prime Minister really mean when he says - I do not know whether he means what he says - that a Singapore citizen who then becomes a Federal national will have all those constitutional rights in the Federation? It makes a lot of difference.

Sir, that is so. If the hon. Member had been following the Prime Minister of the Federation, he would have noticed that the Prime Minister of the Federation made the point that there would be no barrier between the mingling of Singapore citizens in the Federation and vice versa. He said - if I remember him on one occasion, reading reports from London - that he believed the migration is more up than down, but unfortunately my Minister in charge of social welfare tells me that it is more down than up. Whatever it is, that will continue; there will be rights of association, Pan-Malayan or Pan-Malaysian parties, trade unions, and so on. I do not like to raise hopes unduly, Sir, because I looked up a man who could read the stars and he told me that when the Tunku finally retires - according to his reading of the stars, and he also read the Red Star of the Barisan very carefully - Tun Abdul Razak is likely to be the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Sir, I am afraid this will not make the Communists very happy. But what to do? These are the unfortunate things of life with which they have to put up. There is nothing to stop - this is in a more practical vein - any Singapore Member (this is by way of example, of Singapore U.M.N.O. or even of the Singapore Alliance) from becoming a Minister of the New Government of the new Federation of Malaysia after merger. And in constitutional theory - I told this to the astrologer who looked up the stars and read the Barisan Red Star - I told him that there was nothing to stop the Member for Queenstown in conjunction with his Front friends in Penang, like Mr Lim Kean Siew and so on, from becoming the Prime Minister of the new Federation. Mind you, Sir, I think long before that happy event arrives, I have a feeling that there will be a lot of trouble between ambitious Front men - both in Singapore and in Penang.

Is that also from the stars?

Yes, that is also read from the stars, Sir. And he has a five-pointed red star. The Member for Anson has a friend in Ipoh who has a six-pointed blue star - or black star; I am not sure. But I saw some blue ones painted in Kuala Lumpur where the P.P.P. stood for election. I do not know, but these are some of the anomalies that will have to be adjusted, otherwise people will get confused over the voting paper. You cannot put a five-pointed star or a six-pointed star in red or black. It would be terribly complicated when it comes to voting.

There is only a one-pointed star.

These are problems to which I think they could do well to bend their minds. If they calculate a few steps ahead and be more careful', they might avoid - I think it is too late to avoid this round which has reached the zugzwang - a second round. Sir, I want to ask the Member for Hong Lim this very simple question. Can he show me any instance of an associate member of a club having the right to become a member of the managing committee? Fifteen representatives from Singapore will be elected direct by the citizens of Singapore, as automatic Federal nationals, to the Parliament of the new Federation and will become members of the managing committee of the new Federation of Malaysia. Another question is this. Can he show me a club which allows an associate member to become the President or the General Secretary or the Secretary-General or an office-bearer of the club? Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon) King Edward VII.

Sorry.

The Medical Association. Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose - The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. The Alumni Association of King Edward VII College of Medicine.

What does it do?

Associate members may hold office. They are only asked to pay $1.

Then that is very good. Then what is the point? If I can pay only half my fees as an associate member and then I can be the President of the Association, I would rather pay half the fees. No wonder the Medical Faculty is in such a deplorable condition. The chaps are selling out the rights of the local-born to all the expatriates. What can we do, Sir? We try to save them from their own folly. Sir, any one of the 15 Members of Parliament, and I repeat this, any one of the 15 from Singapore, be they born in Singapore, India, China, Indonesia or anywhere else in the world -

Timbuctoo!

- or Timbuctoo, can become Ministers, Deputy Prime Minister, or even Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia. I ask the Barisan Sosialis, is that a sell-out? We sell out Singapore in order to allow theoretically a Singapore man to be the Prime Minister of the new Federation of Malaysia. You sell yourself to yourself. What are we talking about? Sir, as to the second part of the amendment, I have already referred to paragraph 14 of Command Paper 33 which is a clear and categorical statement agreed to by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. It says that: 'Nationals of the larger Federation, whether Singapore citizens or the Federation citizens, will as nationals have equal rights, carry the same passport, enjoy the same protection and be subject to the equal duties and responsibilities under the Constitution of the larger Federation.' And every single word therein has been carefully weighed by the Attorney-General on that side and the State Advocate-General on this side. The only point where Singapore citizens are different from Federation citizens is that Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their State rights and privileges - education, labour, social welfare benefits. They are of different rates, Sir,If tomorrow we have complete merger, our social welfare allowances will have to go down by more than one-half to keep them in line with the rural areas of the Federation. And I do not think, in the minds of the ordinary people, that they will understand that merger brings economic stability, expansion and prosperity, if that is the immediate side effect.

$90 million.

Order. I am sure the Member for Queenstown will find the Prime Minister accommodating if he wishes for elucidation.

Giving $90 million away.

We are not giving $90 million away, Sir. There is no such thing. Nobody is giving $90 million away. This is magic conjured up by some bright spark; I do not know who. I do not think it is James Puthucheary.

I am responsible, if you will permit, Sir.

Order. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

I am responsible, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the assurance of the Prime Minister talking to his cronies on the air, the cronies of the Press, when he informed them that we have come to an arrangement with the Federation whereby the Federation will receive one-quarter of our annual income, which works out to $98 million a year on the present Estimates. $98 million for nothing.

That is another instance, Sir, perhaps of saying words in haste and regretting at leisure. May I refer to the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and myself? This is my letter dated 11th November to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. The second last paragraph: 'Finally, we have agreed that Singapore would keep more than three-quarters of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities on education and labour, social welfare, health and all the other matters set out as state or concurrent responsibilities in the schedule annexed to our memorandum, and, be entitled to 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation.' Sir, may I very simply explain this? If one looks through the schedule, the State List - I am obliged to you, Sir, for having circulated it to Members. It was an oversight, and we should have put it out, but we assumed that Members had made themselves familiar with the Federation Constitution. That, anyway, is for all States. List I, in all the other States of the Federation, is what they call Federal List controlled by the Central Government. Sir, we are taking out of that List, from Federation to State control, very important items. In particular, Members will note items 13, 14, 15, and all the other concurrent items. Because of the complexities of budgeting procedure, it is a very complicated subject. I do not pretend to understand things which I do not understand. I leave it to the experts to work them out. But may I give a simple example? The one Ministry most affected, of course, is the Ministry of Home Affairs. My colleague, the Member in charge of Home Affairs, will have divested himself of a great deal of responsibility, like internal security, item No. 3 there. Defence - he is doing a little bit of it, S.I.R. and so on. External Affairs - I run a minor department to keep the Consular Corps happy, and from time to time insult the Portuguese Consulate by not sending them a Christmas card; that sort of thing, Sir. Well, my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs will have divested himself of nearly three-quarters of his responsibility - Police, $28 million, is it?

$30 million.

Police, $30 million. He is not giving to the Federation. That chunk of the Budget will, from the day of merger, appear in the Central Parliament Budget, not the Singapore Budget. We will not present it anymore.

Point of elucidation, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

I have got the paper here of what he said, the 20th November, after those letters were exchanged. The Prime Minister said the acceptance of 15 seats was not just a question of splitting the difference between 12 and 19 and reaching the figure 15, but because Singapore would be getting three-quarters of the State revenue. If you like, Sir, the paper is available.

Order. I think that is exactly what is contained in the letter of 11th November, 1961. Is that correct?

I am sorry if I had been misunderstood. But quite simply what it means is this: those items not appearing in the Singapore Budget and which come under the Federal List will be taken out of the Singapore Budget. Our Police Force will then be paid by the Central Government. That is so. It is my job to negotiate, Mr Speaker, Sir. And the Minister for Finance will have to spend a heavy amount of work in apportioning pensions. Pensions is one of those things which they have decided [Interruption]. Yes, let me explain, Sir,It is a complicated procedure. Let me start off with the police, because I am quite sure the Barisan Sosialis are very interested in these matters. As from the day of merger, the Minister for Home Affairs will only look after - Some hon. Members: The Fire Brigade!

Fire Brigade and a few other things. No, no. He will look after - [Laughter]. Well, we are such a wicked, tyrannical Government! Are they not happy that we are rid of such a tyrannical Minister?

That is why we are laughing.

Yes. But let me inform them of this. These are a few mercies for which they must be grateful. The Minister for Home Affairs will still be in concurrent charge of publications. So we will let Fajar be published - it does not matter. We will let the Barisan, you know, the red star and a blue circle, carry on. We will not cancel all these things. Where the item is concurrent, it will still appear in the State Budget. We will have to pay for it - the staff, secretaries and so on. Where it is completely Federal, like Police, Post and Telegraphs, Telecommunications, the whole lot will go into the Federation Central Budget, and a very intricate Establishment exercise is involved because of the pension liability. Sir, I do not want to anticipate the tremendous financial problems that will crop up. But may I say this, and I say it with some reservation, looking at my colleague, the Minister for Finance: we have certain reserves and we intend - probably Brunei also intends - to keep these reserves aside for State development. But the reserves are already committed for pension liability of all officers. Now certain categories of officers, as in the P & T, Police, Prisons - I am sorry to be so morbid, Sir, but in the nature of things they go to the Central Budget; they will appear in the Federal List. Some of these officers have already served 20 or 30 years in Singapore, and for that part of their service, their pension liability will have to be borne by the Singapore reserves. Future service will have to be borne by the Malayan reserves or Pan-Malaysian reserves. And I am told this is quite a delicate exercise in the mathematics of actuarial -

Actuarial science.

Actuarial science. I am told you can calculate what the odds are. How many chaps die at what age, and who live to enjoy pensions for how long. These things have to be worked out. So it is with policemen, prison warders, postmen, and so on. Let me inform Members of the House that this $90 million is just a misconception. I will not say more than that. I am sure the Member for Anson generally misunderstood, or I did not make myself clear. But this is that section of the Budget which will be transferred to the Central Budget. The Federation does not take over the Police Force tomorrow and then disband and sack the whole Department. Somebody has to keep the police going; the police stations, vehicles, replacements, V.H.F. equipment, latest finger-printing searchers, and so on and so forth. A very intricate business. It has to go on; it has to be paid for. In my estimation, in fact, the end result is that we will be keeping more than three-quarters, at least three-quarters. You will see in the letter I mentioned more than three-quarters. How much more than three-quarters we do not know, because of the pension liability and other things. But we will continue. This Assembly will not be emaciated. It will not become like the Johore State Assembly, Sir. Forgive me for mentioning such mundane things, Sir, but if it did, then suddenly Members' allowances would be reduced to $200 - a very sad thing for Barisan Members. I hear that nowadays they have to scrounge around to keep their branches going, to set up new branches and to pay rents and so on. Let alone the Speaker, Sir, and the whole panoply of his office. I do not mind being paid as the Chief Minister.

Order. I do not think the Speaker is entitled to debate. The Speaker is impartial.

That is the point I want to make: that after everything is said and done, and having transferred all the Federal Departments to the Centre, we will still be in charge of over three-quarters of our annual revenue, and the machinery for collection will still remain as it is. And we will present yearly Budgets; albeit this time the obvious ones which will be missing, probably from the next Budget, will be Police, Prisons, Posts & Telegraphs. I must be fair to the Member for Anson. The only extra expenditure we will incur, and which we are not incurring at the moment because the British are discharging it, is the Ministry of External Affairs and Defence. At the moment, we pay nothing for it. The British pay for the Consulates. We only pay for Djakarta and London. We have a little Trade Commissioner's Office in London and one in Djakarta. We are hoping to set up one in Japan. By the special arrangements made, we will still have direct access to Trade Commissions in all the key centres for our entrepot business, but it will become part of the Malayan Embassy. And this is the - Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of elucidation?

Yes, Sir. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

From what has transpired from the Prime Minister's speech, even though he is a political opponent, I would like to point out that in this matter, it was the Leader of the House who, in answer to my question, "Why are we giving this $90 million?", said, "For Defence" in this very House. Now what the Prime Minister has said has certainly clarified it. And I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider attaching addenda to the White Paper, so that we can the better understand it in the light of the elucidation both on the subject of citizenship and the expenditure of money before we continue the vote.

Sir, I will be happy to continue to elucidate. And I say quite frankly, as the Member for Farrer Park has said, if the Member for Anson, who is a trained lawyer of some repute, particularly in criminal matters he has a very high repute, can misunderstand this, probably there are other misconceptions. For that reason, we have published, this early. And we will give everybody ample time to raise any query on any subject. There are no cards hidden anywhere. There are no traps. There is nothing that is a fast one. What is done is open on the table for debate and for discussion. And I say the only extra expenditure which we are not incurring at the moment is to pay our portion of the Federation's Ministry of External Affairs and Defence. That has been calculated by the Ministry of Finance at about $12 million, if only Singapore and the Federation come in, or about $10 million, perhaps less, (maybe $8 million) if the Borneo territories also come in, because then they will have to share the load. That is all. That is the only load we are not carrying at the moment. Sir, I now come to the second part of the amendment - the question of automatic conversion of Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship. Mr Speaker, we had anticipated that the Barisan Sosialis would continue to raise a false alarm. They will continue to do it over citizenship. It is our duty as the Government - and I hope we will be helped by Members even of the Opposition, who have principles by which they stand and who believe that this must be a necessary step forward towards our destiny to a more stable and prosperous society - to defend, to explain and to continue explaining until every lie has been bared. Sir, in precise and clear terms, the White Paper explains that no Singapore citizen will lose his citizenship rights. Li addition, he will acquire new rights as a national of the new Federation. I repeat this again, because I think it bears repetition for the purposes of the record. Among those rights will be the right to elect representatives direct to the Federation Parliament; the right to carry the same passport and enjoy the same rights and privileges under the Constitution; and to be subject, of course, to the same duties and responsibilities for instance, conscription, taxes and so on. These rights and duties are set out in many sections of the Federation Constitution, beginning with Article 8, which emphasises that all citizens are equal.

Hear, hear!

I do not want to labour the point, but I think hon. Members who are interested can look through the documents entitled, "Malayan Constitutional Documents". They can see there spelt out, equal rights, equal liabilities of all citizens which will later on be of all nationals of the new Federation. '8. (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. (2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion race, descent or place of birth ...' and so on. Citizens who will have to be changed to nationals. '(3) There shall be no discrimination in favour of any person on the ground that he is a subject of the Ruler of any State.' And so on to Articles 9, on prohibition of banishment, and freedom of movement. But here, may I add this, Sir? I do not want to mislead anybody. Under Singapore laws, and under the provisions agreed to in the Command Paper, Sessional Paper 31 of 1956, a Singapore Citizen can, for varied reasons, be he an opium smuggler or a smuggler of a less apparent commodity than opium, be called upon to show cause why his citizenship should not be questioned and so on. But that is another matter. I do not want to mislead anybody on that point. What I want to say is this, all rights in Singapore and the Federation, of Singapore citizens and Federation citizens and Federation nationals, will be equal. The operative Articles which will have to be amended will be 8, 9, 10, 47 (Qualifications for membership of Parliament), 119 -

Order. For the record, if the marginal titles are read, perhaps that will be sufficient.

May I then just run through the marginal titles of the provisions: 8. Equality; 9. Prohibition of banishment, and freedom of movement; 10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association; 11. Freedom of religion; 47. Qualifications for membership of Parliament: 119. Qualifications of electors; 123. Qualifications of Judges of Supreme Court. There are several other sections, Sir, hut these are the important ones which set out the rights and duties of nationals. Sir, we have discussed the question of citizenship, nationality, and the representation of Singapore Members in the Central Federation Parliament with the Federation Prime Minister and his colleagues. Our respective arguments and view-points were recorded in an exchange of letters which were tabled on 24th November, Friday. May I, Sir, draw he attention of Members to certain relevant portions thereof? This is particularly important when considering the proposition now put forward by the Barisan Sosialis, namely, that all Singapore citizens should automatically become Federation citizens. They make this demand in the full knowledge that it is completely unacceptable to the Federation, and that it cannot be supported either by logic, reason or precedent in the Federation. First, may I read what the Federation Prime Minister said in his letter of 13th November, in the second and third paragraphs: 'I would like to emphasise that it cannot be assumed that the analogy of Penang or Malacca is necessarily relevant to the status of Singapore in a merger with the Federation. Article 22 of the Federation Constitution makes provision for a merger of new states on terms which do not necessarily have to follow Penang and Malacca which were already members of the Federation when the 1957 Constitution came into force. If the stricter citizenship laws of the other States were applied to Singapore, Singapore would be entitled to not more than twelve seats, since less persons would be eligible for citizenship and consequently for franchise, quite apart from the question of weightage for rural areas.' May I just pause there and explain this, Sir? The Federation's point of view is quite simple. Penang and Malacca were special. They were part of the Federation already. People born in Penang and Malacca were already Federation citizen by virtue of the 1952 Agreement before the coming into being of the independent Federation of Malaya. That is the first point. Secondly, if we were to follow the laws of Johore or Perak, either the Federated Malay States or the Unfederated Malay States, then however generously you interpret these rules and so on, their appraisal is that we would not be entitled to more than 12 seats at the maximum. Finally, they go on to say that in regard to the distribution of seats in the whole of the Federation as such - as in other countries where the parliamentary system is practised - by the nature of things and by the circumstances of geography, there is more representation per 10,000 of population in the rural than in the city areas. In the urban areas, people are concentrated together. One representative can cover one square mile, or even half a square mile. The Member for Kreta Ayer, the Minister for Finance, has a constituency, I think, which does not run to more than even half a square mile.

Thirty acres.

He has as many people to look after as the Member for Sembawang or the Member for Chua Chu Kang, who constantly complains of the enormous distances he has to travel. On the average, it has been worked out, I think, at about 30,000 per representative in the urban area and 20,000 per representative in the rural area, because the man in the rural area has to cover enormous distances. If that is taken into consideration, then it will definitely be less than 12 by any calculation. That is the Federation's point of view. Sir, may I then read my letter to the Federation Prime Minister of the 11th November, setting forth our point of view? Third paragraph: 'If merger were completely on the basis of Penang, then the citizenship laws of the present Federation which applied in Penang will apply to Singapore. About 284,000 representing those born in Singapore out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for citizenship of the present Federation. This would entitle Singapore to send 14 representatives to the Central Federation Legislature. This is comparable to the 14 seats to which Johore's 291,230 citizens are entitled.' Johore has 291,000 - 14 seats. We say that if Penang terms apply, we will have 284,000. These are the more important parts, Sir. How did we come to the figure 15? 'The remaining 340,000 Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore would have to apply for citizenship under the present citizenship laws of the Federation which require, inter alia, a residential qualification and a knowledge of the Malay language. On the basis of the numbers in the other States in the present Federation who have qualified by application for citizenship in this way, over two-thirds i.e. more than 230,000 will lose their present citizenship.' This is really the crux of the problem. Because of the different citizenship laws in Singapore and the Federation, if we now apply the Federation citizenship Jaws, there are 340,000 Singapore citizens who will have to re-apply. If we study the statistics of people in the Federation who were not born there and who had to apply, then we will know fairly accurately what would happen in Singapore. What happened is that about one out of three was successful in their application. In other words, out of the 340,000, our calculation is that 110,000 will qualify and 230,000 will not qualify. This is the crux of the matter. If we listen to the Barisan Sosialis - or if we were foolish enough to listen to them - take them at their face value and ask for the Penang and Malacca type of merger, there will be a confused and riotous position in Singapore, because 340,000 people will have to re-apply, two-thirds of whom will not succeed. Therefore, we have arrived at the provision which I later explained in the letter. May I continue with the letter: 'On the other hand, the claim that Singapore citizens should automatically become Federation citizens and thereby increase the representation Singapore would be entitled to, was and still is, in the view of your Government, too absurd to merit serious consideration.' This is quite simply what they told us. First, the Barisan Sosialis say, "We want Singapore citizens automatically to convert." A man comes here from India for two years. He would never have been entitled even to make the application, and so is disqualified on the face of the application because of inadequate residence. He then becomes a Singapore citizen because our laws are different. He says, "I want to be a Federation citizen now." Not only do we want that, but we then say, "Well, now, that entitles us to more representation." This, in the view of the Federation Government, is unacceptable and is known to the Barisan Sosialis. It must be obviously so, Sir, unless the Government wishes to lose the confidence of its own electorate there. I went on to say: 'Merger on either of these terms would be unrealistic. However, you have agreed that all present Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship rights and become Federal nationals, provided this is not then put forward as a reason for an increase in the number of representatives for Singapore.' This is the operative clause, Sir, - "provided this is not then put forward as a reason for an increase in the number of representatives for Singapore." It is as simple as that. Mr Speaker, Sir, without discourtesy to the Chair, may I take off my jacket because of the air-conditioning? I must say, for the benefit of Members, that I did attempt to get the City Engineer to maintain pressure in the Assembly but not for the whole of the City area, but he explained to me that it was impossible to maintain pressure for the Assembly alone without at the same time opening the whole of the City area. Everybody would then open their taps and the pressure would fall down, and that would affect the air conditioning. Coming back to my subject, may I say that this is the core of the problem? If we went in like Penang, and if what happened in Penang and Malacca happened here, we would have 284,000 automatically qualified amongst whom would be quite a number of Members from this House, not including the Member for Queenstown or the Member for Thomson, because they were not born in Singapore, or the Member for Pasir Panjang or the Member for Moulmein because they were born in China. They would have to reapply. That is another problem for them. But we say, "All will keep their Singapore citizenship. All will become Federal nationals and be equal to Federation citizens who also become Federal nationals." As far as national rights are concerned, they are equal. The only difference is in the voting, because these 230,000 - two-thirds of the 340,000 - who were not born in Singapore will not have qualified. The Federation does not want them just to go across the Causeway and start voting in Johore, thereby increasing their representation there, because they would not have qualified in any case. But we say, "No. We have allowed them to qualify under Singapore laws". The Federation says. "Well, that is your business, but we are not giving you increased representation as a result of allowing you to let them keep Singapore citizenship and becoming automatically Federation nationals." It is a simple case of saying, "Here is the Singapore cake. How do you share it, whether it is among 624,000 citizens of 624,000 minus 230,000 who will not qualify, that is not our business. But you are not going to get a bigger cake just because you say you have more citizens, because they would not have qualified in the Federation." Sir, I went on to say: 'My government estimated that on a merger like Penang, Singapore would be entitled to 19 seats in view of Perak's 450,000 voters entitling Perak to 19 seats.' Let me explain this, Sir. 284,000 born here; from the figures in the Federation of one out of three qualifying, we can calculate that 110,000 will qualify. 110,000 plus 284,000 makes 394,000; let us round it off at 400,000. Let us say that between now and Merger Day, everybody suddenly takes an interest in the national language and learns very hard, and the percentage will increase, not one in three as in the Federation, but say, 50,000 more will qualify; make it 450,000; that would entitle us to 19 seats. Perak - 450,000. I must make this point. This is our argument which the Tunku does not accept, as you will see in his reply. His point is that Perak - 450,000 is spread over a very large area, and we have to compute ourselves on the basis of the urban areas - Penang, Kuala Lumpur, Johore Bahru, Ipoh, Malacca - not the rural areas like Perak. But, anyway, our contention is 19 seats. May I go on to the next paragraph but one: 'Finally, we have agreed that Singapore would keep more than three-quarters of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities on education and labour, social welfare, health and all the other matters set out as state or concurrent responsibilities in the schedule annexed to our memorandum, and he entitled to 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation. This arrangement has precedents in constitutional practice. Northern Ireland, though part of the United Kingdom retains certain autonomous powers. In return for this, though Northern Ireland would he entitled to 16 seats on the basis of electoral strength, she has only 12 because she retains autonomous powers. Should in the future Singapore surrender some or all of her autonomous powers and state revenue to the Central Government, the question of representation can he reviewed.' Sir, we have sold nobody out. We have bought nobody from the Tunku. All we have done is to try and find a way out of the anomaly that has been created by different citizenship laws. And even more important than different citizenship laws, a fact that everybody knows, if you want trouble - not this little boycott of the examinations, a manifestly reasonable academic problem of taking the examinations has already led to two motions in this Chamber, one beleaguered Parliamentary Secretary and the Serjeant at Arms greatly imperilled by being asked to undertake duties which he had not bargained for when he undertook his office. But can anybody in his right mind doubt the opening we will give to misunderstanding and trouble if we say education goes to the Federation? $120 million a year is spent on education alone. Annual recurrent teachers' salaries, books, this, that and the other, $90 million; building new schools $30 million. We hand over $120 million to the Federation Government and say, "Implement the Rahman Talib Report." Then I say quite obviously we are not only ham-handed, but we deserve to be in trouble because obviously we do not understand our own problems. Does anybody in his right mind - and already some people are questioning whether one Member opposite is in his right mind - believe that you can stand up in Singapore and tell the people here, particularly the Chinese-educated, that they have to implement the Rahman Talib Report? Only one-third instruction to be in the mother language; the vernacular; there will be no more public examinations in Chinese; any school which does not comply with those rules ceases to get grants in aid. In other words, Chinese High School, Chung Cheng, Nanyang University atrophy, shrink and die away. No more bursaries for students in Nanyang or Chung Cheng for their post-secondary examinations, studies and so on. And they say we have sold out the people, Sir! The time will come, Sir, when we shall put these things to the test. We understand these problems. I give myself no credit, Sir, for understanding these problems a little better than the Member for Queenstown, because he started getting interested in these problems only since about February 1959, when he saw the P.A.P. flash and the circle. We have been living with these problems for years. The Member for Anson remembers well what happened. In 1954 and 1955, he became the Chief Minister. I used to see him on behalf of the students. I saw both sides, Sir,I saw a Chief Minister really trying his level best to do what he could to resolve the matter. I saw kids bright and intelligent and able organisers, but with chaps at the rear to see that they did not settle these matters. The Member for Anson knew that. It is not the kids who did not want to settle. It is the chaps who were behind the kids, it is like the Hock Lee problem. He went down there, and so did I. I was advising the Hock Lee Union. He was there trying to resolve the dispute between the employer and the union. He ate a bowl of kway-teow on the spot to the delectation of the photographer. He thought it was settled, and he went back, and so did I. I thought it was settled too. We went back and we discovered it was not settled. It was not the Union Committee that decided. He saw the Union Committee. I hate to say this, but I do not think it was just because of his persuasive powers, but because it was a reasonable settlement. They accepted. We then departed believing the problem was over. Four days later, there were riots in Singapore because the real chaps behind who made the decisions did not want a settlement. Similarly, with the 4:2 and 3:3 systems. We have been through all that. That is why we never made the decision. The Government did not make the decision 4:2 or 3:3, it was the Chinese educational experts themselves - the school management committees and school principals - who decided on 4:2. So you see the problem of the Communists when they have not got a united front. Supposing we had decided on 4:2, then we would have had Mr Ko Teck Kin on behalf of the school management committees and Mr So and So. All these hidden men keep quiet, and virulent words would be uttered via manifestly moderate, reasonable merchants who are obviously not interested in politics but only interested in commerce and the education of their children. But this time it is different and it will continue to be different so long as this Government is in office. When we were going through all that, we were doing a little bit of computation as to what would happen one of these days if we had to be responsible. We did not intend to play the role of just being a whipping boy, slogged from one corner of the ring to the other. Sir, I thought many of the decisions of the Member for Cairnhill were tricky and unwise, but I could not help feeling sorry for him as a human being, pulverised. beaten to pulp, the day he ill-advisedly allowed the police to go in with steel helmets, wicker basket shields and tear gas to clear the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng High School. That day he died.

That was only the day before yesterday.

No, that is different. We do not intend to use steel helmets and wicker baskets. I told you we have already found Out from Italy that they have itching powder. Let me explain it. I saw it from a ringside view. I was with the Committee of Human Rights speaking at Beauty Park. I do not know whether the Member for Havelock was there. Has he gone to the Federation yet? I am not sure whether he has left for the Federation. But I think he will remember that we went up there and railed against the colonialists. They were still in charge, and there were no doubt about it. The Chief Secretary gave the orders. Mind you, the Chief Minister agreed, and that was his greatest mistake. That night, Sir, I saw the preview of what was coming. We finished the meeting at seven o'clock. I came down Bukit Timah Road and I saw the police line up, and so did the parents. They just lined up to watch their own children in anxiety and these little picket boys playing bandits. It is very exciting, this business of putting on handkerchiefs. It gives them a sense of adventure. Sheriffs and bandits! They kept the parents out and the police prepared to move in. The parents watched in anxiety for their kids. That night the police moved in - one night of tear gas and charges. The next morning at seven o'clock, the kids were weeping from the tear gas. I can assure Members opposite that when I went into the fourth branch of the Shop and Factory Workers Union two days after the riots, the gas was still there and I came out from the premises weeping.

And you will weep again.

I am told this tear gas is a bit old-fashioned nowadays. It is the foolish colonial chaps who do these things and make martyrs of people.

Order. The Speaker was so engrossed that he did not realise that the Prime Minister is straying away from the motion. Perhaps we will stop at itching powder.

I think we had better not start that one, Sir, or the Member for Queenstown may be spending a sleepless night, because I am told that if you are given a dose of it, your first and only thought is to go home and have a good bath, and having had a good bath you will not feel like going out for some time.

It will hurt the user more than the used.

Is that so? I am not sure about this, it depends on how it is delivered, Sir. But I am told, beyond any doubt, and having seen pictures of it, that the effect is immediate. Suddenly an angry man in a position -

On a point of elucidation. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

In case the Prime Minister is not joking and is seriously thinking of using it - he has said he has had no experience of itching powder but he has experienced tear gas; vice versa when I was a child, I used to be interested in magic shows and I ordered some itching powder - let me tell him that its effect on children will be more cruel than the use of tear gas. Having had experience of that, and he has not had it, I would like to advise him that if he ever thinks of using it on school children in another boycott, please do not do it.

I am deeply indebted to the dear Lady for giving me the advice. After all, my kids may be involved too and I do not want to harm them. I do not mind their getting a good scratch and then having a good bath, but no more than that. Several members of the Chambers of Commerce - eminent gentry - have children who also put on white masks. It is all fun and games. But let us keep it at that level - fun and games. There is no need for martyrs in Singapore. If we have clowns and foolish men, well, let them be branded as such. Why make them heroes? That is the point the P.A.P. learned. We do not intend to let education go to the centre for the simple reason that that is the surest way to start trouble. There will be real trouble and real misunderstanding. And I say even if the Communists want to stop it, they will not be able to, because it has nothing to do with Communism. This is the latent hangover of generations of culture and tradition, and it takes a long time to get a multi-racial people together. I have covered this theme often before, particularly when the various component parts are being inspired by what is happening outside Malaya - the Chinese by what is happening in China; the Indians by what is happening in India, and the Malays by what is happening in Indonesia - and at this juncture in history, we are trying to get the races to come together. So let us not make our job more difficult. If the Barisan Sosialis stand up and say, "Ah, why not let us have a Pan-Malayan education policy?", I say to them, that we have fortunately got that down in writing, and they may yet live to be sorry that they have put it down in writing, because we will prove to them, first, that that is not what the people of Singapore want, and, second, that when they said that, they were utterly and absolutely insincere. Sir, before I pass on from citizenship to nationality, may I mention that the Member for Queenstown has asked nine questions regarding citizenship and nationality, and the Member for Thomson has added a few more - according to reports, as I did not have the privilege to listen to him. Sir, these questions make interesting subjects for a discussion in a forum in which - as I understand from the interjections of the Member for Queenstown - he is eager to take part. It is only the inordinate length of this debate that is preventing him from expressing his views to the people of Singapore in person. No doubt, Sir, as this debate comes to a close, he can discuss his nine questions with the Member for Kreta Ayer, the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Hong Lim. They are interesting questions.

What about the Member for Anson?

He will be coming too. Sir, I am looking forward to seeing the Member for Anson, but I think he should not take away the fire and the light from the Member for Queenstown. He should be given one on his own with the Member for Kreta Ayer, and then perhaps the Member for Anson on some other occasion. Sir, everyone of these proposals in Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 -

Is farcical.

Oh, you can take part in the forum. Sir, it is so dull and uninteresting. He gets these questions written up somewhere and he says, "Please answer them." It is no use. We answer them and then his Party think out new ones and he comes back and asks us some more - as we have seen, Sir, on one occasion when they agreed to a motion to be debated. If only we were allowed to say, "Proceed now and debate," as on Thursday if we had to discuss the Chinese school students and the pickets.

It was a surprise.

No, there was no surprise.

To distract attention from the debate.

Order. I think the Prime Minister should ignore these interjections and just carry on.

Sir, the point I want to make is this. As I understand parliamentary democracy and the democratic system, one of its most vital features is the open confrontation. [Interruption] Yes, true. The Member for Anson is absolutely a past master in the game. As when a witness is in the box on oath and he tells a lie, he is literally torn to strips. But if the witness just reads a long statement from the dock and refuses to answer questions, you know what it is worth. It is a waste of time. Anybody can draft a 7�-hour speech. In fact, I was aghast at the lack of ingenuity, the lack of material and the lack of flair in the 7�-hour speech. An hon. Member: Hi-fi record.

I think the Member for Queenstown may be interested in this because it has something to do with his future. The Minister of the Interior of the Federation was playing golf with me the other day -

Order. I think there was an attempt by some Member - I do not remember who it was - to give that story to this Assembly and I stopped him.

This is a different story. It has nothing to do with the conduct of the Member. All that the Minister said was that he admired the 7�-hour speech; that Krishna Menon, when he was in the United Nations, made a seven-hour speech; and that the Member for Queenstown had beaten him by half an hour. And he also said that Krishna Menon was being recalled. But I will say this for Krishna Menon. When he talks, it is Krishna Menon who is talking. Everybody knows that. He does not just read his scripts. There is the touch of the artist. When the Member for Anson talks, I have no doubt whatsoever that it is the Member for Anson who talks. Sometimes, to the discomfiture of the Barisan Sosialis boys, they keep on asking him for advice. Because, after all, there are moments when, in the name of humanity and human beings, he comes right down to the core and says, "Well, that is fair. I will vote for it. I will not condone." And he voted for the motion. He takes no line from anybody. We know that. That is why we never blame him for the Public Daily-Rated Employees Union strike. We knew he was not involved in it. That is the point - the open confrontation. The Member for Queenstown is an exponent of democracy as it is understood by the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Farrer Park has also learnt a little bit from colonial days. In fact, I think he must be quite experienced by now, having seen different ages come to pass. I can assure the Member for Queenstown the moment this debate is over, the invitation is on the table. He can have his nine questions answered, and more. We also have a few questions to ask him. As I have said, it is futile to have all these long speeches. The Members just read them. These speeches just have no meaning. You give the answer and they go home to think of something new and ask another question. So we say, have the questioner there; we give the answer, and at the same time we ask the questioner another question. So we mutually ask questions of each other to elucidate the matter. I can assure the Member for Queenstown - he can ask for advice from the Member for Anson - that in the process of cross-examination nothing is more serious than to tell a lie, because when they ask you for one false premise, you are drawn relentlessly down to an absurd conclusion, and finally the House burst out in laughter. This time the witness will not be joining in the laughter because it will be at his expense. Sir, I look forward very much - and I hope too will other Members of this House - to listening in to this exciting forum that is to come on the nine questions.

It is now a convenient time to suspend.

As you please, Sir.

I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.49 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Sir, we are ready to discuss, to explain and to show that every one of the proposals in Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 is just, fair and reasonable. Those who make fantastic allegations of a sell-out of Singapore rights to the Federation of Malaya should do well to ask themselves whether the people would believe that a government which is contemplating a sell-out of the rights of the people would act in the way we are doing. First, we have published the agreement between us and the Federation Government as soon as it is ready and before the Tunku left for London on the 16th of November. We wanted to give ample time to everyone for a full debate on every point. Second, we are willing and ready to explain the reasons for every one of these provisions to everybody and every association of citizens genuinely interested in and concerned over the future of the people of Malaya, and to give these explanations in any language at any convenient time and place. I may add here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Chinese Chamber of Commerce is arranging a meeting of representatives of their member associations and their guilds in order to seek clarification of points connected with education, multi-lingualism, citizenship and trade. And I will be happy - I have already indicated that the Government is happy - to attend to give all elucidation and answer all questions that anybody wishes to raise. Sir, I will not be organising this meeting. It is to be organised by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce.

We have asked questions which you cannot answer.

That is the point, Sir. These are so exciting and interesting that I think they make a good series over the wireless, and we are looking forward to it.

The Assembly would like it early, you know.

Yes, I think they should be given in time. As I have explained, I am greatly indebted to the Member for Anson because I did not understand why the Barisan Sosialis moved the first limb of the amendment, "genuine merger as a twelfth state", because they were asking for something which was already in the proposals. But when the Member for Anson read out the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, then I understood him - whatever we say cannot be done, they then ask for, Mr Speaker, Sir, and they misread this part. So they ask for a twelfth State, not knowing that is what they are getting, much to their discomfiture. Third, we are prepared to put all or any one of these proposals before the people for them to decide on. Sir, let me ask the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors: if there is a sell-out, what is the sell-out in return for? What is the price?

To keep you in office.

This is the price we are accused of in return. This is how this scheme came about - the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister would be resigning and a new Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister would be installed. They were fully aware that only in May this year, after Hong Lim, the P.A.P. Government was quite prepared to resign and return the mandate to the people. At that time, Sir, we saw no way out of the economic, social and political problems; no prospect of merger and no Common Market in sight, for without merger and without a Common Market, we cannot resolve these problems. We cannot meet the expectations of the people for jobs, houses, welfare benefits, and so many of the other wants which they kept on repeating as we went canvassing in Hong Lim. It just was not possible. "Why have I not got a house?" "Why have I not got a flat?" "Why have I not got a job?" There was no answer. The reason was that economic expansion was being constricted by competition between Singapore and the Federation for capital development. At that time, they - the Members now in the Barisan Sosialis - wanted us to carry on in office. You will recall the Press statement by the so-called Left-wing unions - "Duty to the people, and so on; we must carry on." Shortly after Hong Lim, we had a Party meeting, and they told us, "We must carry on. Ignore the people of Hong Lirn. That was no real verdict; no true expression of the people who really counted." Moreover, the Member for Queenstown, in particular my former Parliamentary Secretary (the Member for Upper Serangoon) - the two of them added, if Mao Tse-tung had to stand for election in China with all the food shortage in the communes, Mao Tse-tung would lose his deposit. That is the truth; the absolute and utter truth! That is what they told us.

He is not here to answer.

You were there too!

Order. I do not think the Speaker was there. Will the Prime Minister address the Chair?

That is a fact. If the Member for Queenstown is not very careful, we might dig up the tape recorder. The meeting was held with tape recordings, if he will remember.

Bring it up then.

And they all know what was said.

Bring it here.

We must not do too many things at one time, Sir, because it spoils the ending. It is difficult. It is nor as if we went to see a Western, Sir. Whether or not you could tell in the end how the bandit was caught by the sheriff, you still see the picture. But if in a live play, whilst it is in progress, you tell how the sheriff in the end is going to catch the bandit, the bandit may be absent! So let us leave it until after the event, Sir, when it is all over, and we will put it in a sealed envelope and say, "There you are. It happened that way." Sir, my Parliamentary Secretary urged me not to pay too much attention to these democratic niceties. He said that, after all, what mattered was not whether the people thought we were doing good or not, but whether, in fact, we were doing good to the people or not, and, in his view, we were. So we should carry on. Now we have something to fight for, a worthwhile task to fulfil on behalf of the people of Singapore, to bring Singapore into reunification with the Federation of Malaya to a more stable and prosperous society, where we see prospects of expanding our economy, creating more jobs, more homes, and more prosperity. But when we have this, they want us to resign. Do they believe that the people have such short memories? Do they believe that the people cannot see through the sudden twists and the roundabout turns of the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis?

They will not forget you.

You will remember, Sir, that in September this year, the Leader of the House, in a letter to Members who are leaders of the Opposition Parties in this House (amongst them the Member for Queenstown), asked them to state their Parties' views on merger. In his reply the Member for Queenstown stated that Singapore should be merged with the Federation as the twelfth State, like Penang and Malacca. Sir, I emphasise the working words, "like Penang and Malacca". He wrote them on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis. Yet he is now asking that, unlike Penang and Malacca, Singapore should not abide by the citizenship laws of the Federation of Malaya, but that there should be automatic conversion. As the Member for Anson said - I was not fortunate enough to listen to him but I sought confirmation of it in the reports on the following day - the Barisan Sosialis demand for complete merger like Penang and Malacca was a great mistake. I venture to suggest that their ghost writers were driven to this predicament by their being forced to say that they wanted complete merger when, in fact, the last thing they want is merger in any shape or form, until of course, there is a Communist government in the Federation of Malaya, or the Communist government in Singapore could capture the Federation of Malaya. But having said that they wanted complete merger, they then - as the Tunku said in his Parliament on the 16th October - "ask for impossible terms" (these were the Tunku's words), so that merger can be frustrated. And if this demand for automatic conversion were unexpectedly agreed to by a generous Federation Parliament, then the Communists would oppose merger on some other ground. Of course, the trouble is this: it is difficult to get the people to oppose merger on the ground that merger is not good for the Communists. So they have to get the people to oppose merger by falsely alleging that the merger proposals are bad for the people. These are united front dialectics. If you admit to the people that merger is bad for the Communists, then the people will say, "So what? Is it good for me [the people]?" And you show them that it is. And they tell the Communists, "Well, it is too bad for you. Why be a Communist?" They understand that, Sir, in the same way as this 4:2 and 3:3 education systems. We did not win the battle. The people did. They were unable to bamboozle the people into believing that the 4:2 system was bad, and so they failed. It is too bad for the Communists. Why? Because they wanted to create trouble on any issue. The people did not believe it. They lost. Hence, their constant search for an issue ostensibly unconnected with the Communists round which to rally - it is quite obvious to all Members of the House - the Chinese in particular to oppose merger in any shape or form. This is the open communal line the Barisan Sosialis have taken since this Assembly reconvened.

Nonsense! That is the P.A.P. line.

The questions from the eight of them: what were the supplementaries about? People who were studiously learning the national language when they were sitting on this side of the House suddenly decided to talk in Mandarin.

Order. I have ruled that comment of that nature is out of order because the Standing Orders just say that any Member may speak in any language.

That is so, Mr Speaker. But let me say that it is because of their open communal line that they have naturally provoked some dangerous talk by Malay Assemblymen about bringing out the parang pan fang and the kris. Who has provoked this? We the Government? Or the Barisan Sosialis by their own communal slant? But I say to them that theirs is an almost impossible task. The Chinese, the Indian-speaking and the English-speaking sections of the people in Singapore know in their heart of hearts that they do not want merger on the basis of Penang or Malacca. The reasons are obvious. If those conditions apply, 230,000 will lose their citizenship rights because they cannot qualify under the Federation citizenship laws. Everybody - not just the 230,000 - will lose the present status which he enjoys. Perhaps the more appropriate word would be "privilege" - free competition between all races in the civil service, in trade, commerce, industry, and in nearly all walks of life in Singapore. This is a free area. Seven out of our nine Permanent Secretaries have come from the Federation. Three out of our five local Judges have come from the Federation. Seven out of nine Ministers have come from the Federation. Do the Barisan really seriously suggest that the people in Singapore and Singapore citizens want to go in on the basis of Penang and Malacca? Honestly, do they believe it? One of the Member for Queenstown's ghost writers has referred to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland. I thought this is for them an unfortunate example. That is the trouble with young and inexperienced ghost writers. It is because there was complete merger at the beginning between Ireland and England, with no reserved powers for Ireland, that the Sinn Fein movement started.

Under compulsion.

I am told that when the Member for Queenstown spent his years in college, he was a good rugger player, a good chess player, and a good athlete. He once ran the 440 yards and won it. But I do not think he was a good student of history. He has his facts wrong. He does not understand these things. It is because complete merger at present may lead to unhappiness and a Sinn Fein movement that the Tunku has agreed to give Singapore larger powers of local autonomy, like Northern Ireland. Had these powers of local autonomy been given to Southern Ireland, the history of Eire might well have been different. On the other hand, the people who want to create Sinn Fein trouble are the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis. They are suggesting that we should hand over education to the Federation Government and implement the Rahman Talib Report in Singapore, with all its full consequences on Chinese middle schools and Nanyang University. But while they are publicly saying this on the one hand, their agitators and cadres - I do not mean the Barisan Sosialis; I mean the boys behind the Barisan Sosialis, namely, the Communists - Communist agitators and cadres are mounting trouble in Chinese schools over a very simple and innocuous proposition that has been agreed to between school principals, management committees and the Education Ministry; namely, that all those who want to take the Government Upper Secondary II Examination -

On a point of order. Sir. What has that he has said got to do with the amendment in question?

This subject has been discussed and counter discussed not only in this particular motion but in other motions. I take it the Prime Minster is mentioning this in passing. If he goes into detail, of course, he will be out of order.

I fully understand what a painful subject all this is to the Member for Queenstown, in view of the unfortunate sequences of events namely, that they did not find us a haphazard Government out of use batons and policemen. But, nevertheless, let me mention the relevance. The Member for Queenstown was asking, in his 7�-hour speech, for complete merger in which education goes to the Central Government. I am questioning the sincerity of that because I have pointed out that the men who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis are manipulating these agitators in the Chinese schools. On the one hand, he, on behalf of the Communists, says education goes to the centre. On the other hand, while education is still in Singapore, they are causing trouble long before it goes to the centre. Does anybody in his right mind doubt what would happen if this Government says education goes to the centre, in defiance or in complete oblivion of the wishes, the feelings and sentiments of the people? The Barisan Sosialis say this. On the other hand, when there is a meeting of parents, the Barisan Sosialis Tampines Committee Member turned up. I tried to find out whether he has a son. My first information is that the man is not married. Because of the Tommy Koh incident, I have asked to make quite sure. Maybe he has a wife whom we do not know of and has a son whom we do not know of. So we are checking up first. That is why he is mentioning this. It is an unpleasant subject to the Member for Queenstown because truth is an unpleasant thing to those who are hypocritical. The simple proposition - and this is the truth that I am reciting now - has been agreed by the school principals, management committees and the Ministry of Education. It is not a Government edict, Sir. It is their choice - 4:2. All those who want to take the Government Upper Secondary II Examination at the end of six years must pass the Government Secondary IV at the end of four years. It is a very simple proposition. Before you take your M.A., you first get your B.A. Then they cause a boycott because they do not want to take the B.A. They just want to take the M.A. Pass or fail does not matter! It gets so complicated, Sir, that I do not know how they argue themselves out of this proposition. When we were in the united front - I do not want to be immodest in saying this - at least we kept our arguments to reality and logic. We paid some attention to logic and reason and sanity, because we refused to join them in anything which was illogical and unreasonable. But the Barisan stars are different. They shoot off into outer space like sputniks, some of them never to return! They are trying to get the Chinese middle schools and students excited over the proposition, as absurd as saying that students should be allowed to go to Nanyang University before they pass the Senior Middle III Examination. But nobody has suggested that. Obviously that is absurd. If you do not pass the Senior Middle III, how can you go to Nanyang University? But they say, if you do not pass the School Certificate, never mind, you still go on and take the Upper Secondary III examination.

On a point of order. The Prime Minister is going into the question of education, and you disallowed us a chance to talk on this.

Order. I think I remember the Member for Serangoon Gardens did endeavour to debate the 4:2 and 3:3 systems. I permitted him to mention the matter in passing. But I stopped him when he was going into details on the merits and demerits of these systems. But I do not think the Prime Minister has got as far as that yet.

I do not want to go into details, partly because I am not fully acquainted with the details. We left this to the Chinese educational experts to decide. And they decided it this way. That is the reason why, when the students were running around, some of the experts were locked up in the class-rooms and the principals could not get out. They were beleaguered and there was no Assembly to help them out with resolutions, sad to say, Sir. The trouble over the boycott has stopped for the time being. But I say this, in connection not with Chinese education but with merger and the Communist attempt to frustrate merger, that we would be unwise to assume that the Communists have decided not to use the students any more as a source of mischief and disorder in their attempt to prevent merger. Therefore, I say to this House that when the Government is forbearing to the point of being accused of weakness, let them remember that it is always better to be accused of being too tolerant, too gentle, than to lend the slightest shred of credence to the accusation that we use brutality, like the Member for Cairnhill - brutality, atrocity. I saw them, Sir. As I said, they used tear gas - a very foolish thing - and batons, not to beat the students, hut just to disperse them. And they came down in marching columns from the Chinese High School to Newton Circus singing. A memorable evening! That day Mr Chew Swee Kee died politically, because, to thousands of Chinese parents whose children were in Chung Cheng and Chinese High Schools and who did not understand what this was all about, their innocent children were being flushed out in defence of Chinese culture, civilisation and language. So that was what they were there for. In defence of Chinese culture, civilisation, language; Malay culture, civilisation, language; Indian culture, civilisation, language; English culture or English-speaking and so on and so forth!

P.A.P. culture!

They have no culture.

That coming from the Member for Anson, Sir, I feel a bit sorry because he must understand. I am not in a vulnerable position. I am Chinese. I could throw myself back as a Chinese and play the Chinese line. It is quite simple. I could survive. I have learnt the language a little bit. I will learn more as the years go by.

Getting old.

So says the Member for Queenstown. But those who are not, I say it is utter stupidity to play this line. This is the way to a red blood-bath which neither the Communists nor the Government can stop. This is what happened in Ceylon - Singhalese versus Tamils. This is what happened in India - Punjabis versus Gujeratis: Punjabi-speaking, Malayalee-speaking, Andhra-speaking - a whole host of problems so developed. So let us not start these things. The attitude of the Government towards these matters must obviously be simple and obviously reasonable. There is no reason at all to be excited about the future of Chinese education, language or culture. Education in our merger proposals is a subject reserved for the State, and there will be the financial provision to make this a reality - genuine reserved powers. Sir, the 4:2 system, as I have said, has been agreed to between the principals, management committees and the Ministry of Education. It is not our wish to impose any change on the Chinese educational system, or the Malay educational system or the Indian educational system, even if it is a change for the better, unless the Chinese educational world or the Malay educational world themselves desire the change. In this way, we shall watch the Communists run around in vain trying to find a rallying point in the Chinese schools from which to mount an assault on the Government Sir, some Members of the Barisan Sosialis are keen bridge players. I am told by the Member for Jalan Besar that while the Barisan Sosialis were in the doldrums in the last few months staying at the Canning Rise Assemblymen's Hostel, reading the news of our progress towards merger, they used to while away their time playing bridge, day and night At a later date, I am told that it degenerated into poker, Sir. But bridge was what they started with - an intellectual exercise, Sir. Therefore, I say they will appreciate this little metaphor. We will call merger trumps. They raise the bid on merger's trumps. Our merger partner, the Federation Government, raise the bid higher. Finally the Barisan Sosialis call a grand slam for merger's trumps. They say they want complete merger with no reserved powers. They want more merger than we do. Sir, in our hand we hold 7, 8, 9, 10 cards of merger trumps. In the Tunku's hand, he holds the Ace, Jack, Queen and King of merger trumps. Sir, I do not know whether it is because the Tunku holds the Queen and King of merger trumps that the Barisan Sosialis have ill-advisedly called him a feudalist. But now, the hand will be played out to its inexorable conclusion and a terrifying lot of points will be lost in this little round. The folly of the false and hypocritical proposition that the Communists want more merger than the Singapore Government or the Federation Government, or the people of Singapore or the people of the Federation, will land them in more and more difficulties until the game is inevitably and irretrievably lost. A lot of ill-considered and ill-conceived remarks about the Tunku and the citizenship and nationality proposals in this White Paper have been made by the Communists through the voice of the Member for Queenstown in this House. He has two assets, from their point of view, Sir. A strong voice and a total disregard for reason, logic and good sense. He has referred to the citizenship and nationality proposals agreed to between the Tunku and his colleagues and the Singapore Government as a form of apartheid in which he wildly alleges that Singapore citizens will be segregated from Federation citizens. Nothing, Sir, is more remote from the truth. The Tunku has said, "More up than down." We believe it is the other way. But whatever it is, does he believe a Government which allows, in constitutional theory, the Member for Queenstown to be eligible to be Prime Minister of the whole of the Federation of Malaysia? And he calls that apartheid! Dr Malan agreed that the Cape coloured persons and the Zulus can become Prime Minister of South Africa. And he says that is apartheid! What are we talking about? Sir, he has read too many different speeches written by too many ghost writers. The arguments they put forward for him to read are often contradictory. First, he asked, in writing (this is very important, because otherwise, he will say, "When did I say these things?"), for merger with Singapore as a twelfth State, like Penang and Malacca. Then he rejected the conditions of citizenship which applied in Penang and Malacca and wanted automatic conversion even though he admitted that the rules for Singapore citizenship were quite different, they being freer and easier than the rules for Federation citizenship. Then, in lengthy and complicated arguments, both he and the Member for Thomson -

Obviously you have never studied them.

Sir, one of the unfortunate burdens of office I have to carry is to read studiously through a whole host of jargon. I have to read through it in case I find one valuable point which has to be answered. So I studiously read through it. I am more fortunate than you, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I do not have to be here, but you have to be. But, anyway, you have a wig, so I hope from time to time you are safe from some of the more rigorous portions -

You read all that in spite of the thing causing you -

Order. If the Member for Queenstown would like elucidation. I am sure the Prime Minister will sit down. We cannot have these long interjections. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

He was never here in the Assembly, Sir. All that I have said about citizenship never appeared in English newspapers, not even over Radio P.A.P.

He reads Chinese.

Sir, I studiously spent long hours sweating it out with my Chinese teacher, reading the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Por which published every word of it verbatim. This led me to believe, since both these papers had exactly the same thing, word for word, character for character, that there was already a prepared Chinese text handed over. I went through the whole lot. I have to, it is my duty. Sad to say, I get no special allowance for all this, Sir. As I was saying, then in very lengthy and complicated arguments, he and the Member for Thomson tried to show that even if the rules for Penang and Malacca applied, nearly all Singapore citizens would qualify. That is what the Member for Queenstown said, Sir. And yet on the 20th of October, when I asked him publicly in the newspapers to say, since he believed that all Singapore citizens would qualify under Federation citizenship laws, whether he would accept the citizenship laws that applied in Penang and Malacca. To that letter there was never a reply.

There was no reply from Toh.

There was no reply -

From Toh.

I think he gets confused. I wrote this letter and I said, "Since you say everybody will qualify, would you mind saying categorically - if you believe in your argument that they will all qualify - "I accept it" and tell the people? Assure them that they will qualify." I do not tell the people that, because calculating the figures in the Federation, I know that 230,000 would be disqualified. The Member for Queenstown says, "No, they will all qualify." But when we asked them to say in writing, "Yes, we accept it," they kept quiet. Sir, instead, he has come back here and repeated the claim for automatic conversion, which he knows is completely unacceptable, and he has tried to laugh off the different residential qualifications required by the Federation citizenship laws by saying that only a few European civilians and ex-servicemen would be involved. I think I am right in saying that because I interjected at that point. I was here then. I asked him whether he was aware that a large number of Indians, as British Commonwealth citizens - or rather Commonwealth citizens (I think the British have decided to be more discreet these days) - are allowed to acquire and have acquired Singapore citizenship after only two years' residence -

What place?

Here. Over 50,000 such persons, the majority of whom are Indians, have qualified in this way and would be disenfranchised on the residential qualifications alone, if we had merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. They include the 10,000 City Council Indian workers, and others in the Naval Base, Army, R.E.M.E. Workshops and Air Ministry. Of this 50,000 the majority are Indians, and only 1,000 or 2,000, at the most 3,000 are Europeans. And he laughed it off. I think this is food for thought. Let me do the computation for him. I think one of his advisers, Mr James Puthucheary, is a good statistician. He might confirm this for the Member for Queenstown. I rely on my colleague, the Minister for Finance. 624,000 voters in Singapore, Singapore citizens - Malay-educated, approximately 15 per cent; English-educated, approximately 10 per cent; Indian-educated, another 10 per cent. That is 35 per cent. They are solidly ranged against all these nonsensical proposals that the Barisan are spouting for. If we take the latest figures on the English-educated, every year since the last revision it has gone up; it is now 12 per cent. So it is now 37 per cent. The Barisan Sosialis can be quite sure that they start off with 37 per cent saying "No" to them. So you see, it is a pretty tough proposition. They said they had 2,000 students attending the meeting, mass rally, procession or victory march. The Chinese papers said 4,000. So let us be fair. The Straits Times said 2,000 but I also read the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh and they said 4,000. 4,000 students out of a total of nearly 50,000 middle school students. That is a minority of 8 per cent, which, in this year of excitement, they can mount on the other side. Sir, I view the future with a reasonable degree of equanimity, provided - this is an important proviso - we do not give any excuse for raising communal fears and tensions. I would beseech the Malay Assemblymen in this House not even unwittingly to help the Barisan in playing this line. It is a natural thing to react and talk of parang panjang and the kris, but it is not wise because what they say in this House, by the time it reaches the coffee-shops (which the Member for Farrer Park has talked about) is completely distorted and they say that what the Member for Geylang Serai and the Member for Kampong Kembangan promised was the kris and the parang panjang on the day of merger. A complete distortion would have gone out. Tensions would mount. So I say the less talk of this the better. If the Barisan want to play this line, they take the consequences upon themselves. I say neither wittingly nor unwittingly should we give them any excuse to mount this. We know the Member for Geylang Serai did not say that. What he said was, if they persisted in saying this, then in the end the result would be the parang pan lang. A fair remark. The Member for Kampong Kembangan said there was also the kris. But we have a volatile situation, Sir. For no rhyme or reason, all of a sudden people think that somebody is going to attack another body, and the whole situation suddenly gets tense. It is a curious thing that before the ARTIS case was even announced, half the town already knew of it. Not a word had been uttered; nobody had been yet arrested; tension had mounted by word of mouth because, on communal issues, you can arouse fears so quickly and so intensely that it just is not true. I say, as responsible political leaders, however provoked we may be, let the Barisan alone play this dangerous line -

P.A.P.

- for anyway, they are in a dangerous position. God bless them! Sir, may I add that any Singapore citizen who goes to reside in the Federation and would like to give up his Singapore citizenship and, together with it, his special rights, State rights in Singapore, and his education, housing, social welfare benefits and so on, can do so and apply for citizenship of the Federation. If he can pass the rules for citizenship, including the language test, he can convert his Singapore citizenship into Federation citizenship. But there are 320,000 present Singapore citizens who will be unable, either because of the residential qualification or the language qualification, to satisfy the Federation citizenship rules. They can travel freely throughout the new Federation and enjoy equal rights and protection under the Constitution as nationals of the new Federation even though they do not convert their Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship because they cannot pass these tests. Sir, this is a point worthwhile mentioning, not because the Members concerned are necessarily concerned only for themselves. This is one of the reasons why the Communists lay such great stress on automatic conversion. By way of example, Sir, the Members for Queenstown, Thomson, Pasir Panjang and Moulmein were not born in Singapore. The Members for Queens-town and Thomson were born in the Federation, and the other two were born in China. Under Penang and Malacca conditions of merger, they would have to re-apply for registration as citizens. They know very well, Sir, that the Federation Government does not give citizenship rights to Communists, pro-Communists, or conscious stooges of the Communists, and that if they are to apply for registration as Federal citizens they will never get it. There are quite a number in this category, and not just the four hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned. You will recall, Sir, that one of the demands they made on 2nd June for supporting us in the Anson by-election was to give citizenship rights to anti-colonialists, like Mr Fong Swee Suan and a few others. But they did not mention that these anti-colonialists were not nationalists but Communists, and we did not give citizenship rights to them. They are worried for these people. They have neither Singapore citizenship nor Federation citizenship, and they are not going to get Federation nationality. For their own selfish interest, to ensure that the few who have Singapore citizenship can run for election in the Federation in case they cannot win in Singapore, or in case they have not enough of what they call "kakis" in the Federation, they have mistakenly first asked for complete merger like Penang and Malacca, not knowing that, in effect, they were selling out the rights of over 230,000 Singapore citizens who would be completely disenfranchised by the application of Penang and Malacca conditions. Sir, very few people in Singapore change their residence to the Federation, and over 99.9 per cent of the people of Singapore are not Communists; and of those who move to the Federation nearly all can qualify under the Federation citizenship laws to vote there for Federal State elections and Central Parliament elections if they can satisfy the residence and language test. But the Communists who apply will not be given that right, and they know that. Only they - and unfortunately there are many of them in the Barisan Sosialis - are anxious about the condition that they have to register for Federation citizenship, because they know that the Federation Government will not give citizenship rights to the Communists or pro-Communists or even conscious stooges of Communists. Sir, we have been told that the term "national of the new Federation" means absolutely nothing. You will remember that the Member for Anson raised certain questions arising out of the term "national of the new Federation". I said then that I would ask the State Advocate-General to advise us on this question of nationality. I have done this and I have tabled his opinion for the benefit of all Members of this House. Sir, one of the advisers of the Member for Queenstown - I think he has two in the Party - is only a semi-qualified person. He has only passed certain parts of the law examinations. I do not know It may be. But if he has such an adviser, naturally he came to the conclusion that since there is no such term as "Federal national" in the present Constitution, then, therefore, the term "national" means nothing. Sir, this half LL.B. - because he has only half an LL.B. - went through this Constitution and said, "No 'national'. Therefore this means nothing." Surely do they expect the people to believe all this? Obviously I do not know, Sir,I was in the chamber and explanations were going on between the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Anson. I think the Member for Anson was slightly unclear about these proposals, probably no doubt through constant meetings with the Barisan Sosialis.

You are very interested!

However, Sir, I am glad that the ignorance of the Member for Anson is not responsible far the lack of lucidity which is usually very apparent in his legal arguments. Do they believe that all these proposals in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, which hears the signature of the Federation's Prime Minister, mean nothing, that the Constitution will remain like this and we just send up the 15 representatives voted by us? The Member for Anson - I quote him as an authority - negotiated the first talks in Singapore. He worked out his heads of agreement. He knew that once they were agreed to, it means that the parliamentary draftsman would step in to spell it out and enshrine it in the Constitution. Surely that must follow. I repeat once more: if for domestic and internal purposes, a man wants to change his rights of Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship or vice-versa, be can do so under the domestic or internal State laws of Singapore and the Federation. But for national and international purposes, it is unnecessary, because he will automatically become a national of the new Federation and whether he changes from Singapore to the Federation or vice versa, he is still a national of the new Federation with no right added or subtracted by his conversion. There is nothing to support the wild allegation that a Singapore citizen will be a second-class citizen or will be segregated from Federation citizens. It is just one of those Barisan Sosialis lines intended to confuse the situation. Sir, I do not want to labour the explanations the State Advocate-General has given in his written opinion, but for the purposes of the record, I would like to refer to them - photo-engraved copies have been circulated to all Members of this House - and if there is any further point that requires elucidation, I am quite happy to refer the matter to the S.A.G. As I have said, Lawyer though I may be, it is not my business to be the Government's legal adviser. On these matters the Constitution lays down who is to advise the Government, and if the Government is asked for further elucidation, either in or outside this Chamber, we shall be only too happy to ask the S.A.G. to clarify. But I would like to paraphrase, if I may, because I am told by the Minister for Culture that the language used in the opinion is too legalistic and formalistic to be readily understood by the majority of people. I would like to paraphrase it in simple language without altering the meaning or the sense of what the S.A.G. has written. It simply means that the terms "citizen" and "national" have the same meaning. The word "citizen" is usually used with reference to a person's domestic or internal rights within a country and the term "national" is usually used with reference to a man's international standing and status. I would like to add that we could easily call all present Singapore citizens, together with the present Federation Citizens, citizens of the new Federation instead of nationals of the new Federation without any change in the meaning or the content. Calling a man a citizen or a national cannot add to or subtract from the rights of citizens or nationals of the new Federation by whichever term they are called. These rights have been agreed to in paragraph 14 of the White Paper and they will be so enshrined in the Constitution of the new Federation. Sir, in the first merdeka talks in 1956, the Member for Anson secured the agreement of the All-Party Delegation - I am now quoting from Cmd. 31 of 1956. Annexure D - "Heads of agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Singapore". These provisions were set out from the pen of the Member for Anson arid were agreed to by all members of the All-Party Delegation, including myself and Mr Lim Ching Siong, the then Member for Bukit Timah. Paragraph 8 (7) reads: 'That the nationals of Singapore [not the citizens of Singapore] shall be:-

The nod?

It is an important thing.

Order. I was just wondering how our reporter will be able to record a nod.

For that reason, Sir, I have described it as an up and down movement of the cerebrum - not more than 25 degrees. Subsequently, when we came into this Chamber in the last Assembly to implement these proposals - this was one of the terms which were agreed to in the first Constitutional talks in 1956, not the second one, because we inherited this from the Member for Anson when he led the first one - and when we translated them I did not know why, who or what, but the Member for Cairnhill then as the Chief Minister introduced a Citizenship Bill presumably because (I am not giving any secrets away) I think what happened was they just copied the Federation Bill. Since the Federation called them "citizens", they just changed "nationality" to "citizen".

While we were asking for independence.

No, not because of independence.

Not when I was called the Chief Minister.

I see. I think that is a valid reason. It enhances my argument that now that we are going to be independent, we will become Federal nationals. I am indebted to the Member for Anson for having reinforced my point. When the Member for Cairnhill changed it to "citizens", nobody said it was a sell-out. Now we change it back to "Federation nationals", and the Barisan Socialis say it is a sell-out. Now they have no less a person than the Member for Anson from whom from time to time I see them soliciting advice on matters of procedure.

We take advice from the people!

Yes.

Yeah!

Order. The Member for Queenstown is a very angry man! I have indicated that if he wishes to interject, I am sure the Prime Minister will give way.

That is the point which I think I have to labour because - the Member for Farrer Park has already drawn your attention to it - it is being deliberately misconstrued outside. The Chinese characters, unfortunately, by translation, have not the same connotations as the English terms for the word. To any English-speaking man, particularly one who is familiar with legal language, one talks of nationality, never of citizenship. The first question that is asked when you enter any country and immigration forms have to be filled up is. "Nationality?". When you apply for a Singapore passport or a Federation passport, the question is asked, "Nationality?". But unfortunately when it is translated into Chinese, the original, more commonly used term for "citizen" is translated Kung Min, meaning public, people, citizen. And the word "nationality", Kuo Min, meaning country, people. I am genuinely grateful to the Member for Anson for having been helpful in this matter, in convincing the people that the terms "citizen" and "national" mean the same, and that further, in the English language, the term more commonly used is "national", and not "citizen". This is the problem which has now arisen out of the interpretation of Kung Min and Kuo Min, and we may have to spend quite some time and I welcome every opportunity we have to do every conceivable thing to explain to all people that they are not losing anything. They are keeping their Singapore citizenship and they become automatically nationals of the new Federation. They can vote for their representatives to the Central Parliament. They have all the rights of nationals, anywhere in Malaya or Malaysia. If they want to go to the Federation and take part in State elections there, they can qualify under the State laws there or the Federation citizenship laws there. But the point that must constantly worry the Communist backroom boys of the Barisan Sosialis is that whatever hap, pens, or whichever way you combine and permute the conditions for merger, after merger security will be in the hands of a strong Central Government, and their opportunity for subversive activities will be severely conscribed and confined. The Member for Queenstown has, on behalf of his Communist friends, denied that they are worried about this and has claimed that they are quite happy to go to gaol. Sir, I know of no sane man being happy to go to gaol, but I know of chaps who are not afraid to go to gaol. I quite believe there are some - I know of some in the Barisan Sosialis - who are not afraid. But I also know of some who are very afraid. That is another matter. They say they are not afraid to go to gaol, but are happy to go to gaol. Then, on the other hand, they get it in writing that the only proposal for merger which is acceptable to the Barisan Sosialis is that which is stated in writing, a confederation with internal security not in the hands of the Central Government. Then they are happy. They do not mind, Sir, about foreign affairs or defence. Even if you say, "$90 million", they say, "Make it $190 million. Tunku, take it. Provided I can run around here in Singapore and build a little ant-hill." You know, all the ants foregather, and the rain comes and dries up the ground. Sir, if merger means that security has to come under the control of the Federation Government, I say it does in any government with a federal constitution; any government they can think of. One of their advisers is still a student, half LL.B. He can look up the Constitutions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States. In a federal constitution, security is in the hands of the centre, not in the hands of the outer region, because if you leave security ii: the hands of the outer region, then things begin to happen there. It is as simple as that. Because of this, they ask for impossible conditions, such as automatic Conversion. They know it is not possible, and they say, "Ah, that is what we must ask for." They misread the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech about it not being possible to do these things as a twelfth State like Penang and Malacca. They suddenly forgot to read, "as a twelfth State" and they say, "Ah, it is not possible to be a twelfth State. Right, ask to be a twelfth State." But we are going to give it to them - the honour of being the twelfth State. Sir, this is their dilemma. In a 7�-hour speech - which I do not intend to equal-the Member for Queenstown asked for complete merger as a twelfth State. He never once mentioned that he is, in fact, asking for education and labour to be controlled by the Central Federation Government. He knows, and even more so do his backgroom boys, the Communists, Sir. I mean the real ones, not the Member for Queenstown. He told me he just wanted to make use of them. "Why not make use of them?" He also told the Minister for Finance. There is proof of that, and that is why he has never dared to deny that.

Don't twist!

You either say you make use of the Communists, or you do not say it. If you have said it, then you have said it. I am quite prepared to accept the Member for Queenstown's explanation now that he really did not mean to make use of them, but what he really meant was that he was going to collaborate with them. That is another matter, Sir. He can give his explanation.

We are talking about you!

Me? I have no intention of collaborating with them on a Communist united front. My intention, Sir, was to collaborate with them on a genuine nationalist, anti-colonial front against the British. So long as we were out to down the British, anybody that said, "I join you to down the British,", I would say, "Yes." The Tunku surely did not down the Communists until after he had got independence. He went to Baling with the Member for Anson, chit-chatted with Chin Peng, came to know of him, and came back. But he did not really go for them. When he got in-dependence and when the issue was not "How do we get rid of the British?", but "What do we do with Malaya?", then we parted company. I will not go in to join with them on abolishing the Internal Security Council, and full internal self-government which is going to lead to an independent Singapore. We saw through all that, and we are not that simple. We got them to sign on the dotted line when they came out of prison - Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan, and Sanderason Woodhull. And the objective was merger. From time to time, Sir, we must remind them of this document. They always find these things unpleasant. They spent 2� years of peaceful solitude and concentration and came to the correct conclusion that merger was inevitable. Then they came out. Night meetings, too much night life, and they came to the wrong conclusions - that the Internal Security Council should be abolished as a first step to an independent Singapore. What can we do, Sir? All I can say is, it is a pity that in the midst of their freedom and all this night life, they did not betake themselves to a quiet place and think things out. If only they had pondered over some of these things - I and my colleague, the Minister for Finance, told Mr James Puthucheary - they would never have made the grievous miscalculations that they had made. The Most Honourable the Earl of Selkirk, U.K. Commissioner. Things came to such a state, Sir, that in a crisis they were more pally with the U.K. Commissioner than they were with us. I said there was something wrong. I could not believe it. At that time I found it difficult of explanation. [Interruption] No. They happened to be true, unfortunately. But there are certain other things which have transpired and which perhaps they may be able to guess at, but we are not going to tell them at this stage - how these things happen and why they happen.

You are talking in riddles!

That is the point, Sir.

Order. The Member for Queenstown, by his interjections, is prolonging the debate on the amendment. An interjection of that nature, I suppose, would ask for a reply, and I ask the Prime Minister not to give a solution to that riddle.

But I am quite prepared to write the solution down and hand it to somebody. And when the solution is already obvious, we can open it and read it, Sir. We knew the answer earlier, Sir. That is their trouble. But I will say this before we finish off with the Chinese education problem. They know that the last thing the Singapore Chinese want is the Rahman Talib Report to be implemented. There is a great deal of unhappiness and misunderstanding - some of it deliberately created, and some of it genuine - over this. That is the last thing any Singapore government should do. But they come to this Chamber, demand complete merger, and say. "Yes, [by implication] let the Central Government take charge of education." And these are the same men, in the same breath uttering and constantly uttering the direst of threats and abuses against the Rahman Talib Report, both in Singapore and the Federation. They have only one company. They do not form a limited company here and a limited company in the Federation. They have one limited company for the whole of Malaya and Singapore. They say one thing in the Federation and another thing in Singapore. Sir, for the purposes of the record, I just want to read through this, that the Rahman Talib Report means that Chinese middle schools should teach only for one-third of their school-time in the mother tongue, and that public government examinations should only be in Malay and English. These are the very points the Communists are encouraging people to get excited about against the Rahman Talib Report. They come into this House and, through the voice of the Member for Queenstown, say. "Hand over education to the centre", in order that there can be real trouble then and merger can be frustrated. We are not concerned with their hysterics as they find the net of merger and a solidly united Malayan nationalist movement relentlessly closing in on them. The people of Singapore can read, can understand, and can discuss their rights and their future for themselves, and decide that the proposals which we have tabled are fair, just and in their best interests. The Singapore citizen will keep his citizenship; he will lose nothing. Instead he will get something more - the status of a national of the new Federation. This status will bring with it all the rights and privileges written iii the Constitution of the new Federation. Sir, I have already explained simply that the only change which involves all Singapore citizens is a change for the better. Instead of the words "British passport" and "British subject" appearing on the passport carried by the present citizens of Singapore, there will appear the words "Federation of Malaysia passport" and "Federation of Malaysia national". Yet to the jaundiced eye of the Communists, Sir, this is a retrograde step. They want the Internal Security Council abolished. They want the British flag still here. They have come to an agreement with the U.K. Commissioner to leave the bases alone. They can still carry British passports. That is anti-colonialism, Sir! But when we get independence and national status, they say we are selling out!

We are not getting independence!

Come, come! I have already mentioned to the Member for Queenstown the possibility that if he could come to terms with his friends in Penang, there is a chance - maybe not for a very long time. But that is another matter. But from people who have long powers of endurance, they might survive all the trials and tribulations, and in the end - they never know. But I will say this to the Member for Queenstown. Whatever happens in the end, if they take the line they are taking now, it is going to do them no good, Sir, because they cannot win. If winning means that they win on behalf of the Communists, they just cannot win. They will not be allowed to win by the very nature of things. If you want to win, you have to win on your own behalf as a democrat, whether you are a Left-wing or a Right-wing. That is another matter. But be your own separate movement, not an adjunct of the Communist movement. Do not rely on the strength of the Communist organisation to provide you with the mass support. We did not, Sir. People used to say that should Lim Ching Siong get locked up, the P.A.P. would vanish and melt away. We did not. We carried on. People used to say, when the Member for Hong Lim left the P.A.P., that the masses would vanish. They did not. 3.000-odd solidly voted in Anson in spite of the treachery of eight Assemblymen who came out on the eve of the poll to shake the confidence of the public in the P.A.P. 3,000 -

You did not get in!

Well, maybe. But we are not running away, Sir. We depend on our own stand, and further more, -

You lost in Anson on your record.

I do not want to belittle the Member for Anson. He won by 500 votes. S.P.A. got a thousand votes. We got 3,000 votes. Somebody else got a hundred over votes. That does not matter, Sir. But I may say this. In the end, and the time is fast approaching, the line is drawn. The P.A.P. is all right. Win or lose, we are still all right. That is the beauty of the situation. We have an ensured position. Heads I win, tails you lose. Anyway, I cannot lose. The P.A.P. cannot lose.

Go to the election right now!

No, no, that is -

Order. As I have said, all these interjections are just prolonging this debate. Perhaps the Prime Minister could carry on with the debate and ignore these interjections.

Sir, I have tried to oblige all Members of this Assembly when they seek elucidation. However, I will press on as you have suggested. They prefer full internal self-government, with the Internal Security Council abolished, to independence through merger. What kind of people are they? An average sensible man asks himself that. They claim to be anti-colonialists, and yet they are suggesting that we should continue to use British passports, as colonial subjects of Britain, in preference to an independent Federation passport, as nationals of an independent nation. The people understand also that with this national status go all the rights and privileges equal to those of the present Federation citizens, who will also become nationals of the new Federation. They say this is a sell-out. Sell-out to whom? The British? The Federation? To us? What are they talking about? Can the Member for Queenstown explain why, by his proposals, he prefers a British passport to the Federation of Malaya passport? He has seen it all published in the Chinese Press; he reads it studiously, like me too. He prefers to carry a British passport, and he says he is an anti-colonialist. It is a funny kind of anti-colonialism that insists on having the colonialists there all the time. When we say, "Look, shake them off. Let us be independent nationals." He says, "No." He may not know the answer. These are tricky questions for him, because he does not know the real answer. The real answer is that if you strike out the British, then the colonialists are out of the ring. Then you have to fight the nationalists and openly say that you are fighting them. Then you are in trouble when you fight them. It is one thing dealing with a dying British regime. It is another thing dealing with a virile nationalist regime. Those are the imponderables which the Member for Queenstown did not calculate carefully when he made his bid on merger as trumps. Sir, these proposals are in the interests of the people. The people will endorse and support what is in their interests, whether the Communists like it or not. After allowing ample time for explanation and discussion to clarify all aspects of merger, we have no doubt that the terms the people will decide on are those which are in their best interests. Sir, we have been called "desperate men". I, in particular, have been likened to Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-shek and Wang Ching-wei.

That is true.

If I were even remotely like any one of these three gentlemen, the ghost writers for the Member for Queenstown, some of whom were in the Assembly -

Order. I have already indicated that 1 will not allow any direct reference to strangers in the Gallery.

I want to remind Members of the nearness and the reality of the position. If we were remotely like any one of these three gentlemen, not only his ghost writers, but quite a lot of his other chaps would have been banished painfully, but quietly, without a squeak. This is how those three gentlemen dealt with their opponents. But we allow them a free debate. We invite them to a radio forum from which they studiously run away. What kind of Wang Ching-wei, Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-shek or Ngo Dinh Diem are we?

The radio is all yours!

We asked them to come, Sir. But they would not. They are shy. One of the most remarkable statements ever made was by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis. He said I hid behind a microphone. I thought all revolutionaries want to grab hold of the microphone and talk to the people. But he said I hid behind one. I asked him to join me at one. He did not feel at all happy about it. He did not turn up. What kind of Syngman Rhee am I? Did Syngman Rhee invite his political opponents to join him in Radio Seoul? No, Sir. As I have said, we talk peace, act peace -

You pose peace.

Act peace. No police, no batons, no force. We use arguments, reason and logic. Sir, the trouble the Communists are in, I think, has been inadvertently admitted by Mr Woodhull. Recently in the Press I read a reprint of what he said in a union magazine. He said the trouble was that it was easier to deal with reactionaries like the Member for Cairnhill and his S.P.A. than with us in the P.A.P. He said this in the C.P.A. Room and I was informed of it by the Minister for Culture. He openly told the Member for Cairnhill That he preferred to deal with him.

He did not pose so well.

Ah! He prefers him. I have confirmation from no less an authority than the Member for Queenstown. He prefers the Member for Cairnhill. Mr Woodhull said, "Strike me! Strike me!" The Minister for Culture said, "No, no. Why should we do these things? So long as you are democratic, we are democratic." I will tell them what is the problem. We have the advantage of knowing them, and knowing them well. We have good reasons to know them well. Sir, in the old united front days, when we fought the British for the common objective of independence, we used to work together. We got to know their modus operandi. We watched the conjurer from the backstage, not from the front stage, Sir. We took out the top hat and they slipped in the rabbit, as I have explained. We pulled the rabbit out - applause from the multitude! At other times, Sir, they allowed themselves to be tied up and locked up and put in a big suitcase. After a decent interval - two and a half years - we unlocked the suitcase and they came out free men. But in the process we learned how they worked their tricks. We know how the props are used and where they are used. The trouble with the Member for Queenstown is - and this goes for quite a number of his Barisan Sosialis boys who are not Communists, there are quite a few of them who are not Communists who are running around with them - is that he has never had the experience of this gruelling process of working the united front with the Communists. It may he that one of these days, through lack of experience and over-excitement, as I have said, instead of pulling out a rabbit, he will pull out a serpent which may mortally bite him, to the discomfiture of his Communist props. That is why their ghost writers were watching so anxiously in this Chamber when the Member for Queenstown was performing for them. Often their faces betrayed their utter dismay as he bungled the role that he was asked to play. He read out their lines correctly, Sir. But often he got the stage directions wrong. For instance, instead of staring at us fiercely in the eyes denouncing us as he read his heavy lines of abuse and denunciation, written against us, he joined us in mirth and merriment at the absurdity of it all. Here was their great moment - like Hamlet, Sir, "To be or not to be." - And the Member for Queenstown broke into uncontrollable mirth. You can imagine the dismay of the directors! They wrote three red lines: Look fiercely. Stare them in the eyes -

That is where you are wrong.

Hamlet broke down and laughed Sir! It was absurd. But, in fact, he has very little to laugh about, because there is a fundamental difference between the united front we worked together with the Communists in the years between the formation of the P.A.P. and the attainment of independence of Malaya, and the present united front between some non-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and the majority of pro-Communists and Communists. Let me explain the difference to him. In our united front from the years 1954 to 1957, it was the classic anti-colonial movement. The enemy was the Right force. The enemy was the British. Everybody who was against the British, be he a nationalist or a Communist, got together to oppose the British colonial system. That is the classic united front. The common enemy was the British imperialists. The people of Malaya - nationalists, Communists, anti-Communists, pro-Communists - sank their differences and got together to fight a common enemy. Sir, as I have mentioned just now, even the Tunku did not fight the Communists until he got independence. Then he had to fight them, because after Merdeka the Communists wanted to fight on for a Communist Malaya. He did not want a Communist Malaya. That is the point. If we wanted a Communist Singapore, the way to travel that road is with the Barisan; abolish the I.S.C., next step independence, next step all irretrievably lost. Let me tell the Member for Queenstown, even in his own selfish interests, if he travels that road, assuming that that road can succeed, he will not succeed, Sir. Because he cannot control the forces that carry him there. But we can. We went with them up to a point, and the point was fight the British. The moment they change the enemy and say fight the Tunku, we say we do nothing of the sort. He is a nationalist and we are nationalists. He is Right, we are Left. But on one thing we are agreed - no Communist Malaya. Therefore, merger. I see he is more pensive these days, Sir. [Laughter].

Order. For a moment, I thought the Prime Minister was thinking of the Speaker, because he is supposed to look at the Speaker and not at Members who are perhaps weary.

Surely, Sir, maybe it did not soak into him so. May I just point out the difference? The Barisan Sosialis, on the other hand, have embarked on a different proposition. The common enemy is no longer British colonialism. It is the nationalists they intend to fight, not the British. Theirs is an anti-nationalist, not an anti-colonialist united front. When they say all progressive forces should unite to fight the reactionary and feudalistic forces of the Federation, what they really mean is that all those in favour of Communism should combine to down the Malay nationalists who rally round U.M.N.O. and the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman. Let me tell him where we stand. We the non-Communists support the Tunku because he represents the genuine will of the nationalists in Malaya. Differences in political policy, political philosophy and economic policy there are and always will be between a Party of non-Communist Socialists - the P.A.P. - and what the Tunku has called a party of the Right in U.M.N.O. and Alliance Parties. But on the nationalist issue - perhaps I should say on a national issue - of whether we should have a national democratic Malaya or a Communist Malaya, we have no hesitation in declaring which side we stand on. We stand on the side of the nationalist Malayans and we will prevent the Communists from undermining our society and the independence of our country.

Hear, hear!

Cheers!

Thank you, Sir. I believe the sincerity of the Member for Anson when he said, "Hear, hear!". Because he went through all this, but he had the disadvantage of having to go through first.

I had you on this.

I hate to believe that I was such a wicked fellow. There were times when I did my best and he knew that. We both went down to Hock Lee to try and settle it. I tried. He tried. We thought we had succeeded. Four days later there were riots because Mr Fong Swee Suan got the directive not to settle. That is all. It is as simple as that.

I think he agrees with you.

Who? Yes, the Member for Anson nodded in agreement, Sir. But let me remind the Barisan Sosialis that the united front is no longer against the British Raj. It is a completely different proposition fighting the Malayan nationalists. He has joined hands with the Communists not to hammer somebody who is dying and on the way out - British colonialism and British governors - but he is being foolhardy enough to try and take on the virile political forces that Malayan nationalism represents. It is a hazardous gamble that he has embarked on, and the least that we can wish him, Sir, is that his painful experience should be over as quickly as possible. The Member for Queenstown, and particularly the Member for Nee Soon, Sir, - he is a more intelligent man - An hon. Member: A Rightist!

- know well the predicament into which their wrong assumptions have led them. The Member for Queenstown will recall the earnest conversations he had with me and the Minister for Finance in June this year during the Anson by-election. He was persuaded to believe, both by the British and by the Communists, that Mr Lim Chin Siong and his Communist friends would be given the free run of the place by the British provided they left the bases alone. This is the important point - provided they left the bases alone. And you will notice, Sir, through all the ups and downs about the British bases, never once did the Barisan Sosialis say, "Down with the British bases!" Because they have a little private understanding. Leave the bases alone and all will be well. And so we became the nationalists. The Tunku and I, we say, "Change from sovereign rights to treaty rights." The Barisan Sosialis say, "No. Carry on with internal self government. Sovereign rights to the British. Carry on with the bases." What kind of united front is this, combining with the British against the nationalists?

Who is selling?

Who is selling out whom to whom, Sir? Some hon. Members: Yes.

In the midst of the crisis, they sought solace from the U.K. Commissioner. I say, Sir, without the slightest reluctance, that I have misjudged the quality of the U.K. Commissioner.

Order. I do not know what the Prime Minister is leading up to. But I do not think he should now go into the personality of the United Kingdom Commissioner.

No, I am very fond of personalities. Mr Speaker, Sir. This is a role which he plays with great - An hon. Member: Elegance.

- aplomb. Considerable acumen on the part of the British Government. Not only did he lead Lim Ching Siong, S. Woodhull, James Puthucheary and Fong Swee Suan up the garden path - they had a tea party at Eden Hall, Sir. Somebody said it was the Garden of Eden Hall. You know what happens in the Garden of Eden, Sir. There was the apple and so on. Somebody said - [Interruption]. Yes. But whatever it was, the result was most unfortunate all round. And having done them in; having got this agreement - you know. British bases, do not touch, then all will be well - Mr Woodhull goes to the Naval Base and says. "Yes, we must have the bases. They look after the rights of the 40,000 workers. The bases must be there." Sir, these are the great anti-colonial fighters. I do not know how they do these things. But they wound up in the end trying to form an alliance with the U.K. Commissioner against the Tunku and me and the nationalists. I do not know how they do this analysis, but I can assure the Member for Queenstown - although he does not understand these things - that his back-room boys completely misread and misconstrued the situation. Hence they are in serious trouble. I tell you why I believe they not only misread and misconstrued but arrogantly believed that they were still right after we had pointed out to them the error of their ways -

Who is arrogant?

That is the trouble, Sir. The bright chaps in the Barisan Sosialis. We told them that the U.K. Commissioner was taking them for a ride. I think this is a necessary bit of explanation of the merger proposals and the British bases why, fortunately, by this exercise around Eden Hall, we have had no trouble over the bases problem. They came to some kind of an entente cordiale that the bases should be left alone. So Mr MacMillan could say to the Tunku, "Even the Communists agree the bases should be left alone. Why are you troubling me about changing sovereign rights to treaty rights and so on? The extreme open front Communist leaders like Lim Chin Siong are quite happy with the bases. S. Woodhull, on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis, says, "Three cheers for ..." - Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. Is the Prime Minister still thinking that this place is Radio Singapore or Radio P.A.P.?

I do not think that is a point of order. Perhaps it is a point of elucidation.

Sir, one of the things the Member for Queenstown has to learn is that he has taken on a hazardous role. One of the things that an open front leader who is not a Communist has to learn when the Communists are getting into trouble and he is getting into trouble with them is to decide, first, not to betray the fact that they are in trouble; second, not to betray the fact that he is in trouble. He starts jumping around; then people will know that he is in trouble. It is bad propaganda. Obviously. Radio Singapore terrifies him and he hates to hear these things. But this is a factual analysis. Mr S. Woodhull went to the Naval Base in September and said, "Keep the bases." It was reported in the Press, and was confirmed by my friends and the Minister for Labour's friends in the Naval Base. So you see, Sir, no trouble about the bases. Instead, they started trouble with something else. We then said they were taken for a ride because how could they take power when we were asked to deal with them? That was the contradiction I could not reconcile. On the one hand, the Member for Queenstown believes all is well, they can take over, only leave the bases alone. On the other hand, we were told, "Look, do your duty and stop this running around like -"

Point of clarification

Surely.

This is fascinating. Would the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us who was telling him to put them in gaol?

I do not want to be so crude, Sir, - gaols and so on - they upset me. I do not think the U.K. Commissioner is such a crude man. He is a very polished gentleman. The Most Honourable the Earl of Selkirk -

An Oxford man!

- Oxford man, great elegance in manners and graceful ways, never suggested such things. He reminded us that it was our duty to maintain the security position and drew our attention to certain alarming prospects of the security position with Political Secretaries running around doing dangerous things. We told him that all was well provided everybody played their respective roles. As I was explaining, Sir, we were asked to take on a role we were not supposed to play. However, having exposed all this, I said, "Look, this cannot be true." Then we exposed the plot, Sir, or half the plot, because there k a second half which is still to unravel itself. They did not believe it, Sir. Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr J. J. Puthucheary turned up at Eden Hall again after all this exposure, and shook the Lord Mayor of London by the hand warmly. I was told Mr James Puthucheary, most indiscreet man, saw the Earl of Selkirk and said, "Ah, Machiavelli," and shook his hand. Eight foreign correspondents were present, Sir,I listened to all this with great astonishment. All this was after the event. I had explained where they were wrong and they were so ignorant and arrogant - Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

Point of order?

Is this relevant to the amendment?

I think possibly the Prime Minister is going into too great details in these matters. He can mention these instances in passing, but not too many details about shaking of hands and so on and so forth. An hon. Member: Machiavelli!

The point I wanted to make, Sir, is this. We have been accused of being arrogant. But when we make a mistake we quickly learn and acknowledge it. We say, "Yes. Sorry we were wrong." But here we pointed out the error of their ways, and in utter arrogance they showed their aplomb. They went up to "Machiavelli" and shook his hand. I cannot understand, Sir. And I say I have misjudged the Earl of Selkirk. I thought him to be a simple country gentleman, Sir. But he is going -

Order. I do not think it is right for any Member to ridicule a representative of the United Kingdom in Singapore. The Prime Minster is very near to ridiculing the man.

Sir, I am sorry I have given you the impression that I wanted to ridicule him. What I wanted to convey was - brought up as I am to believe that all people in tweed suits talk in the intonation of the English-educated squire - that he was a very simple straightforward man. I heard him talk and I saw him dress - so elegant and, graceful. I did not know, Sir, that he was an extremely skilful diplomat. This is the bouquet I want to hand him today, that not only he had done them in, but he had got them to shake his hand after that. I say that you really delivered the coup de grace and the man said 'Thank you' to you. Sir, from this major error of judgment stems a whole host of terrible consequences. After the joint statement on the establishment of Malaysia by the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and of the Federation of Malaya, any faint hope there may have been of a Communist assumption of power by the-manipulation of open lawful parties, like the Barisan Sosialis, has disappeared.

Order. I think the Leader of the House has a business motion. 7.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the proceedings on items I and 3 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Question put, and agreed to. Mr David Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

Sir, I was wondering whether we could debate that motion.

It is Standing Order No 4(1): 'A motion may be made, without notice, by a Minister, at the commencement of public business or at any time between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect either [this is the first alternative]-

Sir, could I ask whether you would agree to a ten-minute adjournment so that this matter could be discussed? It has been sprung on us by surprise. There are several items involved, and to give us another midnight to 4 a.m. debate at this stage - sprung as it is by surprise - is not fair.

Order. I do not think that is in order at all. Under the Standing Orders, the motion has been properly moved and agreed to. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Is it a point of order?

Yes. Could you explain what this is all about?

The position now is that the debate on the amendment as shown in item I will be proceeded with to its conclusion. After the amendment has been disposed of, we will go back to the main motion in item 1. It has already been agreed that the debate on the main motion in item I would cover the contents of the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, that is, his motion in regard to the White Paper on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation, as well as the contents of the amendment to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which deals with the question of merger - that is, the amendment standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown - as well as that part of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech dealing with merger.

Sir, may I add that Members are aware that at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow the debate on the Budget Statement must commence. There are so many items that we will have to go through after the Budget session is over that we shall run very close to Christmas before we are finished. We have tried to get a Saturday and a Sunday sittings.

Order. I do not think the Prime Minister should invite a debate now. Resolved, That the proceedings on items 1 and 3 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Debate resumed. 7.21 p.m.

Sir, from the Communist point of view, whatever happens now, they are in trouble. At one time, they hoped that if the P.A.P. could be voted out of office, there could be general elections and a confused situation created. As a result of such confusion, even if they could not win the elections, no coherent and strong government would emerge, and merger would be thwarted for the time being. Their back-room dialectical analysts must be naive if they believe this any more. In the light of events since the publication of Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961 - in particular, the joint statement of the Malayan and British Prime Ministers - all prudent and wise men can see the shape of things to come. Whatever the alterations in the constellation, I do not see the red star of the Barisan Sosialis in the ascendant. At a meeting of the Sembawang Branch of the Barisan Sosialis on 27th October, Mr Woodhull stated that the P.A.P. had only another two years to go. After that, he believed that the Barisan Sosialis would deal with us. Sir, I have a premonition that long before Mr Woodhull reaches the time when he can vent his frustration on the people who obtained his release from prison, he might well be in a predicament worse than he was before 5th June, 1959, when he was released on our insistence. As the Minister for Finance has said, in a zugzwang situation in chess, any move the Member for Queenstown makes still leads to a checkmate. There are three forces that could checkmate the pro-Communist groups, the Barisan Sosialis, Party Ra'ayat, the Communist-controlled union like the General Employees Union, the student clubs, the old boys' associations and the cultural bodies. First, there is the castle representing the forces of the Federation of Malaya. Second, there is the bishop representing the forces of the British Government. And third, the knight representing the Singapore Government. What the bishop wants to do is to get the knight to do the checkmate, but as in Alice in Wonderland, the pieces on the chess-board move of their own volition, and the knight is unwilling to do the checkmate, because either the castle or the bishop can more quickly and decisively settle the game. The time is fast approaching for those who in July decided to take the Communist bandwagon shortcut to fame and glory, to show how well they can take it. Those who cannot take it, Sir, may find the next 18 months to June 1963 a long and harrowing process. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. 7.29 p.m. The House divided: Ayes, 17; Noes 32; Absent, 2. Ayes. Noes. Bani. S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Lee Siew Choh. Buang Bin Omar Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Byrne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Eng Guan. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy. G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Absent. Noes-contd. Ahmad Jabri bin Mammen, John. Mohammad Akib. Mohd. Ali bin Koh, C. H. Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M.Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Amendment accordingly negatived.

The Question now is, "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." As I have indicated earlier on, the debate may range over the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, that is to say, 'That this House accepts the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 agreed to between the Governments of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories.', as well as that part of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which deals with merger, and along with that the amendment to the Address of Thanks standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown, which reads: '"at end, to add - 'but regrets that the Government is pursuing a "merger" policy of unequal rights contrary to the interests of the people of the two territories, and urges the Government to re-orientate its policy in conformity with the ardent desires of the people for genuine unification'."'. The hon. Member for Farrer Park has indicated that he will be moving an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion. It might be convenient if he makes his speech now and moves his amendment. The suggestion I will make then is that the debate should also range over the hon. Member's amendment. So the effect will be that all Members will have one speech until the very end, when the Hon, the Minister for Labour who moved the original motion will be given an opportunity to reply. I trust that is clear - one speech for all Members except the Minister for Labour who will be given an opportunity to reply. Also, the Member for Queenstown will not be able to speak any longer -

Thank God!

- on these motions because he did speak on all aspects of the three motions when he made his speech.

On a point of clarification, Sir. But this is a new amendment. I understand a new amendment is coming up.

Yes. When the Member for Farrer Park moves his amendment, I think I will permit the Member for Queenstown to make his comments, but strictly on the amendment, because he has had his opportunity of speaking to the three motions which are now before the House.

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. When the Leader of the House, without consulting other Opposition leaders, moved this motion of his, he mentioned items 1 and 3, but not 5.

That is, only procedural, because it has already been agreed that the debate should range over items 1, 3, :and that aspect of merger contained in item 5. Of course, at the end of the debate, votes will be taken only on items 1 and 3. The vote on the amendment by the Member for Queenstown will only be taken simpliciter; then the motion on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which has been moved by the Prime Minister. That arrangement, I think, was arrived at by consent of the House.

Point of further clarification from you, Sir. What about the non-merger part of the motion in item 5?

That will be entered upon when the motion is moved. The motion on item 5 will not be moved today. There will be no vote on item 5. I trust I have made myself clear. The motion on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech will be moved on some other day. There will be no debate today on other parts of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which do not touch on merger. It is only the merger part which will be debated today. I trust that is clear. There is another point which the Clerk has reminded me of, that the question on the amendment which the Member for Farrer Park proposes to move will not be put by me until item 3 is formally proposed to the House by the Prime Minister at the end of the debate. It is just a procedural formality.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can you please let us know further? You do realise that tomorrow we have a debate coming on, and if we carry on too late today, what happens? We cannot even go home to rest and sleep and wake up tomorrow!

That is completely out of my hands. I myself will have to come at half-past two. This is not the making of the Chair. It is done -

By the Leader of the House.

- correctly under the Standing Orders. If Opposition Members have not been consulted, that is no concern of mine. [Interruption]. Order. 7.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion in itself, standing in the name of the Minister for Labour, is actually what all the political Parties in Singapore are committed to. But we have had a lengthy debate over the last 10 to 12 days on that, and the amendment to that, merely because, in my view, the problem had not been put in its proper perspective. Because of that, an amendment had been moved and, in our view, moved not bona fide but with a political intent, in the sense that the Member for Anson had used the word "political", and therefore we opposed the amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, we on the Front benches on the Opposition feel that the ultimate goal is a complete merger. I use the word "complete", Mr Speaker, Sir, because the word "merger" in itself should mean "complete merger". But there has been such a lot of confusion over the use of the words "complete merger", "partial merger", "P.A.P. merger", "phoney merger", "genuine merger", that the word "merger" has become so confused that it has taken on a peculiar meaning of its own over the last 12 days, so that I think we might speak of "complete merger' in the sense of a complete integration of Singapore with the Federation, as in the sense that Johore or Perak or Selangor is integrated with the Federation. It is in that sense that "complete merger" will be used by me. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the position is that all the political Parties are committed to ultimate merger or complete merger, or whatever you may like to call it, then the question arises: what is the opportune moment to bring about such a merger? That would depend entirely upon the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation. If both Governments are agreed that there should be a complete merger, then complete merger will take place. 7.45 p.m.

But if both Governments do not agree upon a complete merger do we then say, "Let the time come, let the opportunity arise when complete merger can be effected." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think it would be wrong if both the Governments took that line, because I feel that the longer the situation is kept as it is today, the longer the time it takes for a complete merger to be effected, the more difficult will the situation become. It could well be, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that if we do not take some sort of action at the moment it would be possible that during the next five or ten years, even any sort of association with the Federation might become difficult, if not impossible. It is on that basis, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I welcome the White Paper on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make this point very clear. In my opinion, the proposals before the House are not a merger in the sense that I have thought merger was. The Prime Minister has mentioned that the word "merger" could mean this. If he says it means that to him, it is not for me to deny it. But to me, and to quite a lot of people in Singapore, merger means quite a different thing. May I respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that, in so far as this particular problem is concerned, it is not what the Prime Minister himself feels what merger is but what the people of Singapore feel what merger is that really is the problem? Mr Deputy Speaker, to the people of Singapore, merger means Singapore coming together with the Federation of Malaya in the sense that Johore, Selangor and Perak are merged in and with the Federation. Although the policy of the S.P.A. was ultimately committed to merger, the S.P.A. felt that in the present context of Singapore and in the present context of feelings in the Federation, a merger was not possible. Therefore, we propounded the political philosophy that, for the moment, the most desirable objective for Singapore and the Federation of Malaya was to come together in some sort of a political association. We call this a confederation under which Singapore citizens would remain Singapore citizens and Federal citizens would remain Federal citizens. Singapore would voluntarily give up some of its sovereignty to the Federal Parliament. On that basis, we run a confederation Government, with local autonomy in all matters of which the Singapore Government felt it should retain control. In that connection, we welcome the inclusion of the Bornean territories in this confederation, in order to make it not only one political unit but also a larger economic unit within' which this confederation could work and survive. The proposition of the Government set Out in its White Paper, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest, is not a merger, nor is it, in my opinion, a confederation. It is a mixture of the two. But I think it does not really matter whether it is a merger, a confederation of what sort of political title one can give to this particular White Paper. But the point is that it has been possible for the Federation Government and the Singapore Government to come to some agreement which is a working possibility and which will, at the moment, be acceptable to the people of the Federation of Malaya and, I think, to a large majority of the people in Singapore. On that basis, we welcome the White Paper proposals. I do not wish to enlarge on the contents of the White Paper. I think the contents of the White Paper - all the emotional aspects of it and all the aspects to which there was opposition from the Barisan Sosialis - have been adequately dealt with in connection with the amendment which we have been discussing over the last 10 or 12 days. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with that matter in great detail. The emotional aspect of citizenship, namely, whether a Singapore citizen is a first-class citizen or a second-class citizen and whether a Singapore citizen equates to a Federal citizen, has been, I think, adequately dealt with. The Hon. the Prime Minister has supplied all the answers, which I think should alleviate all the fears on that aspect. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not propose personally to dwell on the contents of the White Paper. Mr Deputy Speaker, in order to put this debate in proper focus, I said, when I was speaking on the amendment, that I would move an amendment to item 3. The amendment would merely mean that the White Paper proposals were "an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger". I think the Parties in Singapore - and by Parties I mean the political Parties - are committed to complete merger. There has been no dispute in this House on that. In my own view, the White Paper that is now being placed before the House is a practical proposition. As an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger, I welcome the White Paper proposals. It is on that basis that we have objected to the amendment of the Member for Queenstown and that we now support the main motion, together with all the allied motions which are now being discussed by this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to take up much time moving this amendment. We have a very heavy day ahead tomorrow, and I do not wish to speak very much. I think Members opposite the Opposition benches and behind the Front bench Opposition would like to speak more about this and get further clarification. For myself, I feel that the question of a grant of $90 million, which was troubling the Member for Anson, has been adequately discussed. So far as I was concerned, Mr Deputy Speaker, I had no qualms about that, because I knew that under these arrangements, certain Singapore services would become Federal services. It is hardly right that the Federation was going to pay for these services out of its own Budget. It must come out of the Singapore Budget. Therefore, it is necessary, from the budgetary point of view, that monies from Singapore should be transferred to the Federal budget in order to cover the Federal services. As to the balance of the $12 million, the Prime Minister has said that it is possibly for the defence of the country, which, at the moment, is undertaken by Great Britain without cost to Singapore. Therefore, I think the two points which were worrying the House, or some part of the House - i.e., citizenship and the $90 million grant being made by the Singapore Government to the Federation Government - have been adequately answered. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not take up very much more the time of the House except formally to move the amendment to item 3. I move, After "That" in line I to insert the words "as an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger". I have here typed copies of the amendment which I now hand to the Clerk. Typed copies of amendment handed in to the Clerk. 7.58 p.m.

As I have indicated, the question on the amendment moved by the Member for Farrer Park will not now be proposed by the Chair. Firstly, it could not be proposed by the Chair because the main motion [i.e., item 3] has not yet been moved. Secondly, the idea behind Members being given an indication what the amendment is to enable them from now on to debate the implications of that amendment, so that at the end of the debate, I shall take, firstly, the vote on item 1; secondly, I will call upon the Prime Minister or any Minister to move the motion shown in item 3. When that is moved simpliciter, I shall put the amendment simpliciter to the House for a vote. After the amendment has been disposed of, I shall put the Prime Minister's motion, as amended, as the case may be, to the House simpliciter for a vote. That is when the proceedings will end. There will be no vote today on item 5. I trust that is clear. Perhaps I had better explain a little further. The Deputy Speaker has drawn my attention to the fact that perhaps Members do not appreciate that the debate from now on must be on merger, but other than the aspect of merger which has already been debated, by reason of the amendment which has been moved by the Member for Queenstown to item 1, and which has now been disposed of. There must not be any repetition of the arguments which have already been advanced on the questions of merger and citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day. I trust that is clear. 8.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express regret for the motion moved by the Minister for Labour. I think the P.A.P. will not have moved this motion if it has not lost its faith in the future. It wants to trap the people. It has been inconsistent. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have reason to say that the P.A.P. Government is not tabling this motion for its prestige but that it has other motives. This is because the P.A.P. Government has been arrogant in its attitude. It often says that its Party leaders are the most clever people in the world. They have not consulted the people on any big question. As regards the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation, the P.A.P. has boasted about it. We always hear the Government say that the P.A.P. has full authority to deal with the merger question. The Government has always been saying that it has a mandate for merger from the people in the general election of 1959. In fact, the merger which was supported by the people in 1959 is not the same as the one now proposed by the Government. The Government says that it has full authority to deal with the merger question. Then why does it want our support? Perhaps it has realised that its merger is a phoney merger, and one that is intended to sell out the interests of the people.

Order. I think we have had quite enough of the allegation that this is a sell-out merger or a phoney merger. We have dealt with that. If the hon. Member wishes just to say that in passing, well, say it in passing, but do not go into further details.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my intention in saying it is to prove that the motion proposed by the Government is superfluous. The P.A.P. Government tries to place the responsibility on this House. It wants to stifle the people before it does these things. Then it can have the excuse that the House have supported its motion. That is its motive for tabling the motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that I am duty bound to advise the Government that if it realises the mistakes it has made, then it should rectify them. The Chairman of our Party, the Barisan Sosialis, has said that the Government should realise its mistakes and mend its ways. In short, my colleagues and I cannot support these weak principles of merger. The Chairman of our Party has also said that we must judge the Government by its acts and not by its words. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has been in power for two years, but what it has done has disappointed us. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the freedom-loving people of Singapore have their own correct stand on merger. This motion is intended to lay down a trap on our way to merger. It is an obstacle in our way to true merger. That is why I regret that the Minister for Labour should have tabled this motion. The P.A.P. has raised this motion because it has lost faith in its future. The discontentment of the people has spread all over Singapore. Because of this, the P.A.P. Government has come to the House asking for support of its merger proposals. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel it is not right for the Government to use undemocratic methods to try and maintain its position. Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. Let us get down to the motion. This has got nothing to do with merger at all. [Interruption].

Order. What the hon. Member for Stamford has, in fact, indicated is that the motion as a motion is unnecessary, and therefore she is speaking against it on those lines.

(In Mandarin): The duty of a government is to protect the lives and interests of the people and to see that the country progresses and advances, and not to safeguard the interests and positions of a few people, if our Government can neither protect the interests of the masses nor see that the country progresses and prospers, but just looks after the interests of a few people, then it has no right to continue governing the country. It must resign. It must not try to evade its responsibility. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

No.

The Member is not giving way.

(In Mandarin): The Minister for Finance can speak later on. If the P.A.P. Government tries to play about with this disreputable thing, and it is incapable of working for the interests of the people, then it must resign -

Order. I have allowed the Member for Stamford to go on for quite some time on matters which perhaps are a bit far away from the motion. I have always allowed exordiums, but they must come to an end sometime. Now I ask the Member to come back to the motion we are debating.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I abide by your ruling. I only want to show the insincerity of the P.A.P. in tabling this motion. I have said earlier that it wants to lay down a trap on the path to true merger. If there is nothing else the P.A.P. can do except to play about with this phoney merger, then it should resign and come back to face the people. Let this question be decided by the people - [Interruption].

Order. We are having a battle of the female sex again! May I remind the hon. Member for Stamford that we have had this argument earlier on when we were debating the amendment? So let us try to keep away from the same arguments as far as possible. In fact, if the same arguments are advanced, then I must stop them.

On a point of clarification. Sir.

Yes.

I am much obliged. Mr Speaker, Sir, is it permissible in the midst of a Member's speech to move a motion under certain orders of the Standing Orders? I have in mind Standing Order No. 24.

No, I do not think a motion that the debate be now adjourned can be interposed when a Member is speaking. That, I think, should be moved - I am only speaking from recollection - at the end of any speech that is being made.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if a Party is not capable of doing something good for the people, then it must go back to the people. The Government must go back to the people - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have ruled that the Member for Stamford was pursuing a line of argument that is not related to the debate. In her last five or six sentences, she was still pursuing that same line. Mr Speaker, Sir, time is short, we do not want to carry on till tomorrow morning - [Interruption].

Order.

- but if the Member for Stamford persists in reading from a text prepared by her ghost writers, then I suggest the Floor could be given to somebody who can make a contribution to the debate.

You deserve it!

Order. It would appear that the Member for Stamford is straying from the motion. I am trying to bring her back to the motion and I can assure the Minister that I am watching the proceedings very closely.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the defects of the government. I was saying that the Party has no right to represent the people in this House. The Government has no -

That is an opinion which the hon. Member, perhaps, holds very dear to her heart, but I do not think we can allow that trend of argument to develop in this particular debate. When we debate the Budget and during the days that are before us when we debate the Estimates, she will have an opportunity to attack Ministry by Ministry.

(In Mandarin): Then I will leave this to the debate on the Budget. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the impression that because of our different stands, therefore, we have different outlooks too. Whatever we do or say must be different too. An anti-people Party is different from a Party which works for the interests of the people -

Order. Could the hon. Member reserve all those comments until such time as is convenient during the Budget debate, because those convenient have nothing to do with merger? The fact that the hon. Member thinks that the Party in power should not govern and should resign I do not think arises now on this particular motion, which is on merger and, allied to that, on the White Paper giving details of the proposed merger. Those are the two items we should debate, not whether the Government is a good government or, a bad government. Of course, the hon. Member may say the Government is a bad government. But that is all. She should not now debate as to why the Government, she thinks, is a bad government.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if there had been no interjections, then I would not have taken very long to deliver my speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that the proposition made by the Prime Minister that external affairs, defence and internal security be vested in the Federation Government, while Singapore have autonomy in education and labour, is a deception. It is meant to deceive the people. The autonomy is a sham - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

Yes. Sir, the hon. Member was suggesting that the Prime Minister is cheating the people. Is this parliamentary language, Mr Speaker, Sir?

I think I heard the word "deceive". It was interpreted as "deceive". I should imagine that that word has been used time and again in this Assembly from both sides, and I have come to the conclusion that it is an attribute of a politician to deceive.

Wasting Government money!

Order.

I think we have a translator who is versed in parliamentary language in his box upstairs.

So your Chinese is not up to standard?

If the hon. Lady has been misinterpreted, I am sure she will be the first one to say she has been misinterpreted. She may not be satisfied with the word "deceive". Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

(In Mandarin): The Minister can wait for his turn. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that without any political right, then any safeguard is not guaranteed. For example, the strike at Robinson's. The Government, on a political pretext - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

I have not got it yet, Mr Minister. [Laughter] Order. I think the Hon, the Minister must not be in a hurry when the speech is being interpreted. I myself do not know what has been said. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to repeat that part of her speech?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that the proposition by the Prime Minister that after merger, defence, external affairs and internal security will be in the hands of the Federation Government, while the Singapore Government will have autonomy in labour and education, is not safe. If we do not have a political safeguard, I think any autonomy will be useless. For example, not long ago, in the strike at Robinson's, the Government used the police -

Order. I do not think the hon. Lady is right now in going into a completely different matter. She should not go into details like that. If I allow that, then there will be a debate whether that strike was legal, whether the use of force by the Government was correct or not. I do not think we ought to go into those details. Let us come back to the pure and simple proposition that there should be merger between Singapore and the Federation, and that the merger should be as shown in the White Paper. That is all we are debating now. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point or order?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. We want to get through this business as quickly as possible. There is a lot of work tomorrow, but the Barisan have come - An hon. Member: What is the point of order?

Order. The point of order being?

My point is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Where people are reading a prepared text and where they are -

Order. I am not going to allow that interjection as a point of order at all. I do not think it is fair to say that the Member for Stamford has, in fact, been reading, because prepared texts have always been placed on the Table and on the ledges in all parts of this House. Let the hon. Lady continue her speech. If she is wandering too far away, I think the Minister could trust the Chair to bring her back. Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Point of order again?

On a point of order. As the hon. Lady is speaking on the opposite side, we do not wish to interrupt. In fact, I think we should encourage ladies in this House to talk - An hon. Member: Hear, hear! Another hon. Member: Go on!

But perhaps Members of the House -

Could I have the point of order?

Yes. Could I draw attention to our Standing Order No. 54, which says: 'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance ...' -

Are you the Speaker?

- 'or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.'

I think the Speaker knows that Standing Order perhaps better than the Leader of the House - Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

- and I think he can rely on the Speaker to exercise his authority if he thinks it is the proper thing to do.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in this way the Government can make use of political excuses to use the police to deal with strikers and deprive the -

Order. I do not like to interrupt Members, especially Lady Members, but I have already indicated that we must not go into details of this nature in this particular debate, when we are dealing with two points - one is merger and the other is the type of merger as shown in the White Paper. Those are the only two points. If the hon. Lady has anything to say about the conduct of the Government in using the police against the strike, the opportunity will present itself when we come to debate the Estimates under the heading of Police.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this has something to do with the merger proposed by the Government in the White Paper. Although we have autonomy in labour and education, we say that this type of autonomy is a deception, because without political backing, everything is deceit. What I want to say is very short. I want to illustrate and explain that if the Government says that employees and strikers are made use of by the Communists and they can be arrested, therefore, this type of autonomy is not reliable. Therefore, I say this merger is phoney and deceives the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, since I cannot talk in great detail, my criticism on autonomy in labour and education ends here. Another thing is that autonomy in education is also not true at all. If they say that the schools are controlled by Communists or that there are pro-Communists in the schools, then the Government can close them. This is a political question. At the same time, they can point out which teacher is a Communist agent or a pro-Communist and arrest him. Therefore, autonomy in education is not reliable. I want to illustrate this with an example. Autonomy in labour and education is just like fishing by the sea-side. If the fish are attracted by the worm and they take a bite, they are hooked. If the people of Singapore are treated as fish by the Singapore Government and they think that autonomy in labour and education is good, then I am afraid that the P.A.P. proposals on merger are a bait. But I believe the people are very clear in their minds and they will not fall into the trap. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister to show that we cannot support the P.A.P. type of merger. In a Press conference, he referred to our powers and rights after merger. This has convinced us more not to trust the P.A.P. type of merger. On 12th November a publication appeared in the Sin Chew Jit Poh: to the effect that the Prime Minister stated that Singapore citizens enjoy privileges in Singapore and that Federation citizens enjoy privileges in the Federation.

Order. If I allow the Member to carry on in this strain, we are going right back to the debate on citizenship. I think we have had a great deal of argument for and against Singapore citizenship, Federal citizenship and citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens. So this line of argument is repeating an argument which has been advanced, I think - I cannot remember exactly which day it was - about eight days ago.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the difficulty now is this. We feel that it is a phoney merger, but they say that it is a true merger. I want to prove that it is a phoney merger. Therefore, I must quote some examples to prove that. But since you do not permit me to quote an example, I will not say any more. I have some opinion on this type of merger.

Order. I hope the hon. Member does not think I am stopping her unnecessarily. We have already debated a merger as against a genuine merger. I think there have been many speeches from Members of the Opposition saying that the merger which is suggested in the White Paper is not a genuine merger. The suggestion is that it is a phoney merger. We have debated that already.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we still hear the Government saying that the PAP, type of merger is beneficial to the people and that it is a true merger. But my opinion of the P.A.P. type of merger is this. There are three characteristics in the P.A.P. The first is deceit. If they cannot deceive, then they will threaten. If they cannot threaten, then they will try to manoeuvre. These are their three characteristics. I have already said -

Order. The hon. Member is now conversing with lady Members opposite. I think if she just looks at the Speaker, he will be very pleased. He will listen to her as carefully as he can.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to speak any more because a lot has already been said. There may be more speeches on the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The P.A.P. type of merger is not a good one and is not beneficial to the people. Therefore, I oppose the motion of the Minister for Labour.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 24, I wish to move, "That the debate be now adjourned." The Deputy Prime Minister, who glories under the name of the Leader of the House, has, without consulting the Opposition, presumed in a most undemocratic and unconstitutional fashion to move the suspension of Standing Orders after his Prime -

On a point of order, Sir, I think you have just ruled that when I moved the motion for the adjournment it was according to Standing Orders and I strongly protest against the words "undemocratic and unconstitutional" used by the Member for Anson.

The point is well taken because the motion to exempt these items from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 was properly made under the Assembly Standing Orders, and therefore it can never be considered as unconstitutional.

I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. You are aware that there are constitutional and democratic traditions surrounding the discharge of the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. He is not merely the minion of his Party. He is supposed to -

Order. I cannot allow language of this nature. I think all the hon. Member can confine himself to is the motion. "That the debate be now adjourned." He should give reasons why he thinks the debate be now adjourned. I think it is not a proper reason if he alleges that the motion to suspend Standing Order No. 1 is an undemocratic and unconstitutional move. That is not the reason why he wishes this debate to be adjourned. Let us confine ourselves to the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Prime Minister just finishing his four-hour speech. He has had all the headlines. We were entitled to expect, Sir, that we would be able to digest at least some parts of it, because though there was much clowning there was some sense and in certain parts there was, to my mind, considerable important clarification of a very ambiguous White Paper - matters that it was vital to consider if they had any respect for their own Prime Minister; instead of giving us an opportunity to consider what was a very lengthy speech and what, I should hope from their point of view at least was more than mere clowning, was of some importance in what their Prime Minister had to say - he happens to be our Prime Minister too - and giving us an opportunity to understand and perhaps to reorient our way of thinking. It is not a matter of the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis. There are other Parties on this side of the House. There are other persons who can he persuaded even though the P.A.P. believes that this House is nothing but machinery in order to enlarge their voice to the public. I say, Sir, it is barbaric at this juncture to seek -

Order. I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to say that anything which has been done by a Member of this Assembly is barbaric. I think he ought to modulate his language and withdraw that word.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I use the word "steamroller", because that is what is happening? We have had a sitting past midnight only two nights ago. The Members of the Government Front Bench earn Government salaries. They do not have to look after anything else. They can attend here and maybe sleep in the mornings; I do not know.

Order. I do not think that is quite relevant. Let us have some reasons why the present debate should he adjourned.

Sir, most of us have our duties to discharge and require the normal quota of sleep for normal human beings. [Laughter] Sir, I see one of the Ministers finds it highly amusing that we are normal human beings on this side and not on the P.A.P.'s side. Sir, it is unreasonable, so shortly after one of these lengthy sittings, to seek indirectly on a matter of such vital importance - where their own Prime Minister has stated at the very beginning of his speech that he resisted your efforts to limit the speeches because he did not want any limitation on the length of the speeches or the number of speakers - to bring about an all-night sitting, not merely to limit the number of speeches but to render their impact as well as their quality almost negative. Sir, I am moving this motion in the hope at least that those who have free consciences and are not under the whip of the P.A.P. will vote for it as a protest against the undemocratic steamroller of the P.A.P. I say that this House should adjourn now in a civilised fashion and that this debate should be resumed in due course after the Budget debate. Question proposed. 8.45 p.m.

The P.A.P. have always prided themselves on the fact that they want to abide by the Queens-berry Rules. You have a perfect example of Siamese boxing. As the Member for Anson has just said, we had a midnight sitting only a couple of nights back. During this very important merger debate, all sorts of interjections have come in so that attention might be directed away from it.

Order. I do not think that is relevant to' the motion now. The hon. Member can give reasons why he thinks the debate should be adjourned.

As the Member for Anson has also said, there is no consultation with Opposition Members as regards what is happening inside this Assembly. In parliamentary practice, it is only fair, Sir, that if they want to have an extension of the debate, there should be the normal friendly, or if not so friendly then at least decent, behaviour on the part of the Government. It is only right, Sir, that they should consider other points of view, to say nothing of you, Sir.

And the staff.

This is definitely riot an example of parliamentary democracy as Western countries know it.

I thought you despise them.

Tomorrow we have a very important debate coming, and as it is, we have not been given much time to study things coming over from the Government -

On a point of order, Sir,Is the Member questioning the fact that we did not give the appropriate notice as required by Standing Orders? Is he questioning that all these rules on debate, motions, three clear days' notice, have not been complied with?

I do not think the hon. Member ever said that. All he said was that he was not given sufficient time, I suppose, by reason of this prolonged debate on merger. If he had said that, then, of course, he is completely wrong, because the correct time according to Standing Orders has been given.

I understand that, Sir. Although, on the surface, the rules have been observed, nevertheless the fact is that we have not been given time to study all the motions and the Budget Statement. As you know, Sir, we have been here every afternoon debating and listening to speeches and we have not been given enough time to study and give of our best -

You mean it was not your best.

Order.

- on the subject. Of course, Sir, the Prime Minister has the whole civil service to help him, The Thomsons, Meadows -

Order. I think that is completely irrelevant to the motion. But I ask the Members of the Government Benches not to interject because this is a complaint made by an Opposition Member. There is a motion that the debate be now adjourned. Let us hear why the debate should be now adjourned.

As you know, Sir, and as the Member for Anson has said, we are normal human beings on this side of the House and we need rest. Surely the Government do not hope that we will easily gloss over things and let them pass. The Members of the Government - especially the Front Benchers - are drawing fat salaries.

Order. Let us not go into that. Perhaps the Hon. Member might allege that Government Front Benchers have more time than Opposition Benchers. I think that is as far as we can go, but not to allege about fit salaries. It is completely irrelevant.

There is another factor. Sir. Government Benchers have cars to take them home easily. There are quite a number of us on this side of the House who do not have travelling facilities to go back home. An hon. Member: You have.

Come off it!

The bus service stops at certain hours, Sir, and it is only fair that people who do not have huge limousines, air-conditioned cars, be allowed an opportunity -

Order. I think all these details are completely irrelevant. Let us come to the motion. Let us have detailed reasons why the debate should be adjourned.

Of course, I might add that quite a number of us do not have any person to tag along for our protection.

On a point of order, Sir. Is the Member alleging that he is being intimidated, that he will be waylaid in some dark alley?

That is not a point of order. The point of order which I myself have raised is that all this is irrelevant.

Sir, the Government is trying to create an artificial tension of urgency and, in so doing, it hopes that we will not have enough time for the debate which is coming on. We have to take time to deliberate on national matters. If the Prime Minister wants to rush things through quickly, then obviously he is trying to hide something. At the present moment, Sir, quite a number of us did not have tiffin coming here and although -

On a point of order, Sir. Is it proper for the Member to allege quite unjustly and without truth that he was prevented from eating his tiffin?

He did not say so.

The hon. Member has not said that. He has indicated that he has been so busy with matters connected with the Assembly that he did not have the time to eat. That is how I understood him.

Sir, we do not have time to drink beer around here. An hon. Member: I think you ought to try it.

Anyway, Sir, it is very unreasonable for the Government to impose these long sittings on the people.

Why?

If they want to debate things properly, let them do so in the normal democratic way. That is the only way to prove that we are having a semblance - I know that we do not have it - of parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister is a great boaster, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is regrettable that the Member for Queenstown is not like his colleague, the Member for Stamford. He was not here to listen to his colleague's speech. As the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis, he should have as much courage as she has and debate the question now. He is the so-called fighter of the people. We must pay attention to the motion before us. It concerns the people of Singapore and Malaya. The motion was not raised yesterday but two or three weeks ago. The Opposition Members should have made a detailed study of this motion. When we move for the extension of the sitting, they oppose us. This is not reasonable. It will be remembered that when the P.A.P. were in the City Council in 1957 -

Order. On the main motion, so far the hon. Lady is in order. Bui we are debating why the debate should be adjourned, and nothing further.

(In Mandarin): I wanted to say just now that in the past we sat through the night until this next morning and we never felt tired. This question concerns the people o Singapore and the Federation. Is it wrong to extend this sitting? Perhaps some Opposition Members have had no time to prepare their speeches for this debate, and they want to go back to have them written out by their back-room boys.

Not me.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is no need for an interpreter to interpret my speech, then I will speak very strongly. I want to criticise the party very severely, but because of the interpretation I have to speak slowly. When I speak slowly, it does not mean that I am not angry. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Legislative Assembly is a body which reflects the views of the people. It is not an instrument for the Party in power. Assemblymen are elected representatives of the people. They are not elected because they are clever or they can speak eloquently for so many hours, but because they can express the views of the people. The people want the elected Assemblymen to convey their views to this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, the representatives are elected not because they can do everything but because they can loyally and honestly speak in the interest or the people. Therefore, in debating this important question which concerns the future of 1,600,000 people of Singapore, and 7,000,000 people of the Federation, the Government should listen to the views of the representatives of the people. The Government should patiently listen to the views of the people of Singapore. Why is the Government, which professes to represent the people, afraid to listen to their views?

(In Mandarin): On a point of order, Sir. Just now the Member for Upper Serangoon accused us of being afraid to listen to the -

It is not a point of order. It is a point of argument which the Prime Minister can advance later on. I was on the point of getting up just now because it seemed to me that the Member for Upper Serangoon was straying away from the debate. We want to know why the Opposition think that the debate should be adjourned. I think the Member has made his point and he should not enlarge on it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this House should adjourn now, and then after the debate on the Budget we can resume the debate on this motion. I do not see any reason why this will do any harm to the question of merger. We ought to know that Singapore and the Federation have been separated for 16 years and there are many complicated problems after the separation which deserve our careful consideration. We received the White Paper less than a month ago. We should have longer time to make a study of its proposals. If the White Paper put up by the Government has nothing sinister in it, then they should allow us longer time to debate this problem and in greater detail. The Party in power should not -

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. If, as the Member has alleged, they were not ready for a debate on the Command Paper, then why did the leader of the Barisan Sosialis insist on and finally get this House to agree to all the motions being discussed together?

Order. That is not a point of order. That is an argument which the Prime Minister can advance.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of Greater Malaysia, the Tunku wishes to set up a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain the views of the people in Borneo and to decide ways of bringing about a merger, so as to avoid racial disharmony. On this question, the Party in power should be more democratic. We do not mean to say, as alleged by the Government, that we have not prepared the texts of our speeches. The question is this: Since the Prime Minister, as the chief spokesman of the Government, has spoken at length for the Government, we as representatives of the people should express our views on his speech. If we ask for an adjournment in order to modify our speeches to accord with the wishes of the people, then there is nothing wrong in that. This can only make this House a more democratic body and reflect the people's views. I want to tell the Government Benchers that their rough behaviour will make a laughing stock of the parliamentary democratic system and bring about serious consequences to it. I hope Members on the Government side will carefully consider this and accept our suggestion to adjourn the debate now. 9.06 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we want to carry on with the debate tonight because we are debating an issue which is of great concern to the interests of the people of Singapore. The Member for Queenstown has said that he is hungry, and could not carry on with the debate. But he could have asked a servant to buy food for him to eat. As he is a doctor, he could not get sick just by taking this meal. It would riot happen. I heard the Member for Upper Serangoon say just now that our behaviour has been rough. I have never seen anything of that sort. We have never tried to beat him up. Therefore, I can only throw back at him his words, this so-called behaviour.

rose -

(In Mandarin): I remember the students of Nanyang University told me that -

Order. When the Speaker is on his feet, the Member must keep silent. I do not think what the hon. Lady is saying has anything to do with this motion. She has said that the debate should go on while the Opposition has said that it should be adjourned. Let us stick to that aspect of it, because the Speaker also has not eaten.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member was accusing the Government side of rough behaviour. That is why I want to say that we have not been rough. Rather, he is the one who has been rough. Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps they cannot get the views of the people in one right. Or perhaps they have other motives for proposing the adjournment of the debate-to go home and seek help from their backseat drivers, because in this short space of time they cannot gather the views of the people - [Interruption] I ask our former colleagues, now the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen, not to interrupt my speech. They can speak after I have spoken. Let me tell them that if they want to follow the socialist line -

Point of order, Sir. Is it proper for the Leader of the House to be yawning all the time?

Order. I myself have been yawning, so I trust I have not been out of order. Of course, there have been occasions when Parliamentarians have fallen asleep! Then they get out of order when they snore!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we should continue with the debate tonight I remember the time when I was in the City Council. We debated till the next morning. Therefore, from this we know that they are not really seeking the adjournment to gather the views of the people. In asking for an adjournment they really have some other motive. We can see they are a pitiful lot in this respect.

May I suggest that if we go on in this way, we will have 51 speeches on this particular motion. If the debate on this particular motion goes on until 4 o'clock in the morning then we will not have time to go on at all if the motion is to be completed. 9.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government Benchers cannot say I look tired because I had about ten hours of good sleep last night! The Government Benchers can neither say that I am hungry, because I had two meals between 5 and 9 o'clock, since somebody gave me a treat! Nor can the Government Benchers say that I need a ghost writer to write my speeches because I have read through the White Paper several times. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the sake of parliamentary democracy, I ask the Government to adjourn the debate today because this is making a farce of democracy. In previous instances, where Standing Orders were suspended, they were bona fide cases. For instances, when the Government was toppling on the motion of no confidence, or last week when there was a motion on the use of the police, or even tomorrow on the Budget debate when we are prepared to carry on till 6 a.m. But I doubt the bona fides of the Government in moving the exemption of Standing Orders tonight.

Hear, hear!

In moving it, Sir, the Government has not consulted any Member of the Opposition. I can say that the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson - and I am sure the Member for Cairnhill will also agree - have not been consulted on this. Sir, young men like us are prepared to sit till tomorrow 6 a.m., 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. We are used to it. But we must protest, as the Member for Anson has said, in the name of parliamentary democracy.

Let's walk out!

Let's walk out. That is correct. All of us know that the staff of the Assembly are tired.

Order. I do not think that should be advanced. I would not say that they are not tired. But I do not think that should be advanced as an argument in favour of the motion to adjourn the debate. After all, the staff and even the Speaker are here to abide by the decision of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have already made our stand clear in the past two weeks when we voted for the amendment. We, who wish to support the Minister for Labour's motion, can make further clarification of our points. We reject the White Paper. Every Party has made its stand clear, and if we are to decide whether we should talk more or whether we should defend the pillars of democracy, we say that defending the pillars of democracy is more vital and more important. All Members of the Opposition tonight should get united and leave this Chamber.

Order. If the hon. Member for Hong Lim says that the topic has been sufficiently discussed and that everybody has made up his mind on the three motions, then there is another Standing Order (Closure of Debate) which could be applied and just a vote taken. That Standing Order reads: 'After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move, "That the question be now put", and, unless it appears to the Speaker or Chairman that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the Assembly, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, "That the question be now put", shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate, notwithstanding that the mover has had no opportunity to make his reply.' But I must be satisfied that there has been no infringement of the rights of the minority. As I have said, if the hon. Member for Hong Lim is correct when he says that every Member has made up his mind, then there does not seem to be any reason why there should be any further debate. I just put that out as an avenue of escape from walking out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have not made my point sufficiently clear. I was saying just now that we have made our stand quite clear on the motions on principle. But the subject is by no means exhausted. There are many Members who want to speak on the subject. But if we are to decide whether we should speak again on the subject and exhaust it or whether we should defend the pillars of parliamentary democracy, then we will have to defend the pillars of parliamentary democracy, and we will have to leave this Chamber. But I think we will give the Government a chance to reply whether they want to withdraw this motion to exempt Standing Orders or adjourn the debate.

In that case, if any Member attempts to move the closure, I will not agree. 9.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was rather distressed to hear the Member for Hong Lim who, when he was in the P.A.P. and a Mayor, set a historical precedent by tormenting his Opposition members in the City Council, saying that, "As representatives, we should be able to sit right through the night."

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

I have clarified just now what are the bona fide extensions of a debate, like the instance when the Government was toppling, or the debate tomorrow. We are prepared to carry on in bona fide instances. When I was chairing the City Council meetings, there was a bona fide reason for extending the debate. But what the Minister has said just now is that that extension in the City Council was meant to torture members of the Opposition.

Yes, I quite understood what he said earlier. But just to emphasise what I wanted to point out, I say this. There was a time when the pillars of democracy were upheld in the City Council Chamber by having sessions which went on till the following morning. Whether it was bona fide or not is an issue which we have discussed, I think, for 11 or 12 days.

Only the amendment.

Sir, I think you made a ruling that we should range over the whole series of topics.

Order. Let me make myself very clear. I think hon. Members will recollect that when the debate on the amendment was entered upon, and we had had about two speakers. I did make a suggestion that all Members be asked to make only one speech to cover that particular amendment and all matters affecting merger. An agreement was reached by Members of the Opposition that that should be done. But it was the Leader of the House who did not agree. The result was that Members confined themselves as much as they could to the amendment. That, of course, lets in the principle that once Members have spoken on the amendment, they could speak again on the main motion. And when they speak again on the main motion, it is then that they could range over the three motions I have mentioned, which now appear in items 1, 3 and 5. That is the position. Members who have spoken on the amendment are now at liberty to speak again on items 1, 3 and 5 in so far as they touch on merger, and so long as they do not repeat their arguments and are relevant to the motion, excluding the topic we have already disposed of by reason of the amendment. That is quite clear.

Point of elucidation. Mr Speaker, I quite agree with what you have said just now. But you will also remember that you informed the House - I think it was when the Member for Cairnhill was speaking - [Interruption]

Order.

He will have his say. When the Member for Cairnhill was speaking, you did agree that you would not call him to order if his speech was made outside the amendment. You said you would leave it to Members of the House, if necessary, to pull the Member speaking up. During the course of this 12-day debate, a considerable amount of energy has been spent and words have been uttered during which speakers on both sides have ranged very widely over all questions.

I quite agree that is so. And that is why the job of the Chair now is to see that Members do not repeat themselves. I already had one speech by the Member for Stamford where I had to pull her up and perhaps cut out half or possibly three-quarters of her speech. From now on, it will be the job of the Chair to see that Members do not repeat themselves. But the procedural position remains, and therefore Members are at liberty to speak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true that the debate was on the amendment. But everybody who has read the newspapers knows that, in fact, both sides of the House have been stating their stands on the White Paper proposals, not only on the amendment but also on the main motion, and even the amendment to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. So it is quite clear that, in fact, all Members on both sides of the House have ranged over this topic.

Point of clarification, if the Minister will give way. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

I am much obliged. I would like to assure the Minister, through you, Sir, that in so far as I am concerned, I have dealt with the White Paper very lightly and I hope to deal with it in detail. In fact, I have already got a 17-page speech ready - not that I want to consult anybody, but I think it is not fair to go on.

Sir, the point is that everybody knows that we are coming to these two motions, and that they will be debated today. We have debated this topic over the last 12 days. When the Member for Hong Lim talked about the pillar of democracy, for 12 days the pillar of democracy had been allowed to stand where they are and everybody who has anything to say can say so today. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you do ensure, as you have indicated, that there will be no repetition, then I am quite sure that what has to be said today on the topics under discussion for tonight can be said. The Member for Anson has already indicated that he has got a 17-page speech - it is quite a change from a 52-page speech. So I say there is no reason for the contention that just because we have lifted Standing Orders for tonight, as we have done on many other occasions, the pillars of democracy are crumbling or that they will crumble. But if the truth must be told, Sir, it is quite clear why some Members of the Opposition, especially the Barisan Sosialis, are anxious for a postponement. Because we know, Sir, that there have been frantic telephone calls as the speeches tare not ready. More typewritten speeches -

Point of order, Sir. In fact, my speech is all ready.

Order. That is not a point of order. I think arguments that are just being thrown backwards and .forwards will get us nowhere. I cannot see any further argument that could be advanced for or against the postponement of the debate or the adjournment of the debate. I ask Members to cut their speeches short. Perhaps leaders of each Party should decide that there should be one or two Members of their Party speaking. Then let us take a vote.

That is the point, Sir. One Member has said that he has his speech ready. That is why, because people from outside have not got their line laid down, therefore, their men here want an adjournment. But I say, as Members of this Assembly, every Member after these 12 days should know exactly where he stands and what he wants to say. And he can say it tonight without any prompting from outside. Therefore, Sir, the pillars of democracy are safe and will continue to be safe. The fact that Standing Orders do allow such things is nothing irregular. It serves as an indication that democracy is not threatened. And therefore we see no reason for retreating from our stand on this point.

May I just clarify the matter of parliamentary practice?

Hear, hear!

And that is this: If moves are to be made procedurally in any Parliament, the usual thing is for consultations to be made through the usual channels. "Through the usual channels" means the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip getting together, so that agreement is reached on any procedural matter - the number of speeches, the length of speeches, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, here we have not got an Opposition Whip as such. I just want to make that quite clear. Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

The Member has spoken. 9.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis have been accused of wanting to wreck the parliamentary system. But it would appear now that we, in fact, want to work the parliamentary system smoothly and effectively. And it is the Government that wants to overwork the parliamentary system and thereby make it unworkable. As you know, any engine that is overworked is bound to get rusty and ultimately will not be giving the result that it will give if it is normally worked smoothly and effectively. Sir, I will not take very much time. I just want to make one or two points. Briefly they are: (1) that we in the Barisan Sosialis (I am sure the Government Members know this) are not incapable of sitting through a 24-hour session if we want to. Sir, I have no doubt every Member on the Government Front Bench is fully aware of this. Therefore, today when we suggest that we adjourn now, it does not mean that we are weaklings or that we are afraid to sit here and debate the issues until perhaps 6 a.m. or 2.30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. The second point, Sir, is this: we are also not incapable of making speeches without a written script. We are quite prepared, Sir, if the Government Members are, to take them on a debate without any script - the thirteen of us - anywhere they say, provided they do the same.

Hear, hear!

One other point which I want to make incidentally, Sir, is that we support the motion moved by the Member for Anson to adjourn now, because the issues we are debating are very serious. Sir, we are not talking about whether the Prime Minister should get a Tun or a Dato from the Federation Government. If merger is to mean whether the Prime Minister should be given a Tun or a Dato from the Federation Government, then I say we are all wasting our time talking for days and days. Sir, we are debating an issue which involves our livelihood. So far as Singapore is concerned, the livelihood of 1.8 million people. The 51 Members here are not supposed to be squatting around playing the fool and making a monkey of issues which the people are seriously concerned about. Today the Prime Minister spoke for four hours. Tomorrow, the daily papers are all covered with his speeches. In the words of the Minister for Culture, all that they seek to do is this. Because we have been debating for seven days on the amendment and we have been ranging over the other items in the Order Paper, we have nothing more to say. We will then debate for another hour or two hours, close the debate, and there will be no more discussion on merger. Briefly, it simply means, Sir, that they are scared to let us continue the debate on the merger motion.

Hear, hear!

I say this to them. If they are people who want to work the Parliamentary system, if they want to uphold the niceties or concepts of parliamentary democracy, then I say, have the guts to adjourn this debate now. Let us debate the issues before us coolly and calmly - not just for the information of the 51 Members or for your information, Sir, but for the information of the people of Singapore - in an atmosphere which would be conducive to the debate. Finally, I want to say that this is not a question of having a debate tonight between the P.A.P. Members and the Barisan Sosialis Members. I assure you, Sir, that if it is a question of just the 26 Members of the P.A.P. and 13 Barisan Sosialis Members, and nobody else is expected to work, we say, fair enough, we are prepared to take them on for 24 hours or 48 hours or whatever they want. I have no doubt, Sir, that even the Prime Minister would be the first to go to sleep, because I and the Prime Minister had attended meetings and I have seen him leaving the meetings earlier than I. Therefore, I say this is not the question. We are people who, in fact, are not accustomed to go round the clock for a meeting.

Too much night life, that is the trouble!

We have been accused of being night-birds. But it would appear now, Sir, that the Government Members, led by the Hon, the Prime Minister, are perhaps trying to follow us as night-birds. I just want to conclude by saying this. If it is a question of just the Government Members debating the issue with the Barisan Sosialis Members, then it is all well and good. We have, not to mention you, Sir, other members of the staff in this Assembly, including the interpreters, -

I have indicated that the staff should not be made an excuse for supporting a motion of this nature. They are here to serve and they will serve if the Assembly says they ought to serve.

I do not wish to involve you in the debate. But the point that I want to establish is that there are definitely people who are going to be overworked.

You are one of them!

No. You know me. I can -

Order.

I know you too well. That is the trouble!

The point that I wanted to establish was this. As far as we are concerned, we are quite prepared to sit round the clock. But as I have said, there are going to be people who are going to be overworked. The issues are such that they need proper consideration, and in an atmosphere which is conducive to discussing such matters. We say that in the interest of parliamentary democracy, let us adjourn and discuss coolly and calmly.

Hear, hear!

My intention in speaking early in this is that I fear there would be a lengthy debate on the motion for the adjournment, while the typewriters are merrily going on in the Committee Room. An hon. Member: No.

Oh, we can hear it, Sir, from the C.P.A. Room. One of the disadvantages of the C.P.A. Room is that the sounds of the typewriters are very audible. I must warn you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is going to be a lengthy and dreary process. [Interruption] Sir, that is the point. That is why if only they know what they are typing out has to be uttered in this Chamber! If only they would realise the utter futility of all these dreary words which are sheer repetition, then you, Mr Speaker, Sir, would be in better humour and the rest of the House would be in better health. But the Member for Thomson - I am sorry to have to admit this, Sir; I was there quaffing a glass of beer with his Secretary-General (a very bourgeois habit) was drinking a glass of brandy and ginger ale. That is proof that he is a bourgeois man.

Order. If the Hon. The Prime Minister wishes to bring up these little incidents, that, I think, is personal conduct. Therefore, he should file a substantive motion to discuss beer drinking and brandy drinking. I might tell the Prime Minister also that I am thirsty. I have not had my beer!

Sir, you have my deepest sympathy, and I hope - An hon. Member: Let us go home!

There is nothing to prevent any Member from going home. There is nothing to prevent any Member from conscientiously doing so in the name of world revolution. What I would like to hear from Members opposite, Sir, is a bit of real fierce talk in the name of world revolution. They will sit round the clock, but in the name of parliamentary democracy, Sir. That bourgeois animal is meant for only bourgeois politicians. An hon. Member: Dictatorship!

Dictatorship Sir? We have squatted through 12 days of this. We will squat through 12 hours of this till tomorrow morning, till tomorrow midnight, if necessary. An hon. Member: Not in this Chamber?

In this Chamber. But surely, Sir, if we do not want to bring this Chamber into disrepute. while we are trying to squat through 34 hours of this, there are certain necessary processes of nature. The trouble with Members on the other side is that they lose their sense of balance, and they lose it because all of a sudden a prop is gone, Sir. The prop is gone in the midst of the performance. The white rabbit is not put in the top hat. The prop is not ready - Mr Bani rose -

On a point of order?

Yes, Sir. I think this is irrelevant.

I was about to rise. It is irrelevant. Let us go on with this debate. Let us take a vote anyway.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, let us vote. They have been given three full weeks to consider. Do they mean to tell me or you or the people of Singapore that they are going to change their minds when they had already taken a stand before the White Paper was published? They oppose anything published by me and the Tunku. Tomorrow if we were to say were agree to automatic something or the other, they would oppose it. As the Tunku says, he can do no right, Sir, and so Members of the Opposition from Singapore and some from the Federation are opposing it. He is prepared for it. They are prepared for it. They are going to oppose it in any event. I may say we were brought up in a much tougher and rougher school. I do not want to complain of these things, but I do riot think the Member for Thomson did me justice when he said that I always leave the meetings early. Not always, but sometimes. An hon. Member: You come late also!

Order.

I come late, Sir, because often I come from another meeting.

And you take your bath in between!

Order.

Yes. It is very necessary. It helps to freshen the mind. It exhilarates the mental processes.

Order. This, of course, is prolonging matters. Let us wind up this debate and come to some decision anyway.

I will wind up the debate on the basis of the arguments I have heard from the Member for Queenstown. Sir, from one ex-united front performer to another present united front performer, I say he is not up to the standard. He has to find reasons. He says there are no bus services and no cars. That is a very complicated thing. Surely, Sir, - An hon. Member: We do not have Daimlers.

Diamlers? We do not need them. Renaults are good enough. They can carry five or six or seven persons. I have known the Member for Nee Soon, in the days of the P.A.P. revolution, sending them all home in his car. Thirteen of them will require - how many cars? The Member for Nee Soon, the Member for Queenstown, the Member Havelock, the Member for Upper Serangoon -

Order. This has nothing to do with the question that the debate be now adjourned. I must ask Members on the Opposition benches not to interject. If they interject, of course, they get a response. And the response tends to be a bit long. Mr Prime Minister.

My point is most relevant. An argument has been seriously advanced that they have to go home earlier because they have no cars. They have no transport. The buses have stopped. Two days ago they were prepared to go on till 5.00 o'clock in the morning in defence of the stand of the students to picket and bully.

That is right.

How come tonight they are not? [Interruption]

Order.

That is the trouble. They talk all nonsense about fat salaries. The Member for Queenstown has to make his living. I know that, Sir.

I have ruled that out of order, Mr Prime Minister.

Thank you very much, Sir. He says there is no time to think on national matters. No time to think? That is the trouble with the Member of Queenstown. For the 12 sitting days and three weeks since we published the White Paper, and since they shook Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj by the hand at Paya Lebar Airport to bid him bon voyage, the Tunku has gone to discuss very big matters with very big people. Sir - four British Cabinet Ministers - and to arrive at a massive decision affecting the future of so many people and tens of thousands of square miles. We have been hearing the same thing played on this gramophone record again and again. Needles have been slipped back again. It is like the zither in the "The Third Man." I say we are quite prepared to sit - it is now a quarter to ten - till quarter to ten tomorrow morning. Or be it a quarter to 2.00 tomorrow. We were brought up in a hard school. An hon. Member: We are human!

Sorry, Sir. When I say we, I meant P.A.P. and ex-P.A.P. And the Member for Hong Lim is quite accustomed to this. He is used to this in the old City Council days. He is tough. He was brought up tough. The P.A.P. brought him up tough. The Barisan Sosialis are tough too. We know they can stand it. But I think they should not under-rate our capacity for sheer stamina and endurance. We will sit it though to the end. The Member for Thomson said that I leave early. Well, I promise him I will not leave early. I will squat here till the cows come home, till the crows come at dawn. But I will say this. I am giving them a few more minutes to get the first speech ready, while the sound of the typewriter is going on. But for God's sake, let us not be hypocritical - in the name of parliamentary democracy, according to the rules, the Standing Orders, the Constitution, the Speaker. We have been patient and forbearing to the end, and we are accused of selling out parliamentary democracy.

Non-consultation.

Non-consultation? As if consultation between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Member for Anson -

Consultation is not a joke.

Order.

Consultation? I know a doctor's consultation means money, Sir. That is the trouble. Whenever he thinks of consultation, it is the cash pot, Sir. The sound of cash.

Order. This debate is being prolonged unnecessarily. I would like somebody to move the closure because it seems to me that Members have made up their minds and no further argument can be advanced. Mr Prime Minister.

That is the point. I will end it on this note. Members have made up their minds, which we do hold. In the case of the Opposition, they made up their minds before 16th November. They are going to oppose it in any event. But I will say this, in fairness to the Member for Anson. He made up his mind to oppose. He spoke to me in the C.P.A. Room just now. I genuinely and sincerely believe that he is unmaking his mind after what he has heard in the course of the debate from the Member for Farrer Park and from myself on the meaning of "nationality" and so on. He is the only genuine chap there who is thinking out his mind. The others have decided to vote. The Member for Hong Lim has said so. He will vote for the amendment. He will vote for the original motion. He cannot be wrong, Sir. One of it has to be right, and he has voted for one.

Let us not go into those details. Will the Prime Minister complete his speech? An hon. Member: He has nothing to say.

Parliamentary democracy does not mean that we allow the Opposition to invoke these magic words in order just to clog up the processes of legislation. We have a Budget to go through. We want them to debate the Budget. We have given them the full number of days to consider the Budget. We have offered a very important proposal. A motion was moved by the Minister for Finance the day before yesterday to allow a supplementary vote on account - Mr Bani rose -

Is it a point of order?

Yes. I wonder if this is relevant, Sir.

I think it is relevant. The argument is that if this motion goes on, then there will not be time to complete the Budget and the other items on the Order Paper before Christmas. And I like my Christmas.

As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, in other legislative chambers, there are certain stricter rules. You yourself have mentioned the rules, the powers, the devices which this House can exercise to cut things down to the bone and cut away all the forth. But we have been lenient. We want to go on till half-past two tomorrow. It does not matter. We will sit here with patience, with tolerance and with forbearance. And hear this out too. One thing I do not doubt of Members of the Barisan Sosialis is that they, having gone through the P.A.P. mill, can go through this and survive. The Members from the United People's Party too. I have not the slightest doubt that parliamentary democracy will not come to grief just because you have to sit up all night. Say what they have to say, with the help of whatever ghost writers they can rustle up - and they have rustled up quite a few. We shall listen to it patiently and carefully and rebut every material point made. I do not promise that we will rebut every frivolous and irrelevant point. But they will find, like the Member for Queenstown, that there is somebody always in this Chamber who has taken down the material point in order that it shall not be lost by default. Every material point made in the debate that must be answered will be answered. I promise them that. I say, let us go on with the debate. They are not afraid of sitting up late. Neither are we. They want to do their duty by the people. They have made up their minds. They said they were never consulted. The Member for Upper Serangoon has the audacity to suggest that he is going to consult. Just as we want to start debating, to wind up the debate, he now says that he wants to consult the people of Upper Serangoon. What has he been doing in the last three weeks with his meet-the-people sessions? An hon. Member: Yes.

Does he seriously suggest that he is going to change his mind? Only the Member for Anson seriously suggests that, and I believe him. I say to him, I am prepared to sit down with him till the early hours of the morning - night-bird he may not be, though - to explain every conceivable item on this. Let me say this. The debate is not over after the vote in this Chamber. This is what the former Member for Bukit Timah, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, with whom I was quaffing beer, said, Sir. Just before I came in here, he was having a whispering session with the Member for Thomson before he made his speech. I've got the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Mountbatten as witnesses to all these proceedings. Real, earnest consultation, Sir. And the Member for Thomson told me, just to alarm me -

On a point of order, Sir. Is this relevant?

I do not know what is coming out. The Prime Minister has got into the mood of wandering and wandering and suddenly coming to the point. Perhaps those are very good tactics. I do not know.

It is this, Sir. To alarm me and alarm the poor Lady from Mountbatten, he said loudly, "Telegram from Chin Peng." And the poor Member from -

Order. That, of course, is not relevant. We are not worried about Chin Peng.

That is the point. Sir. I say that the conscious utterance betrays the subconscious. I think the Member for Nee Soon can explain why people grow beards for no rhyme or reason.

Order. I must ask the Prime Minister to wind up because he is now persisting in irrelevancies. Standing Order 54 might apply. Mr Prime Minister.

Sir, I say, in the name of democracy, it is important that there should be forbearance, tolerance and good humour in the midst of adversity. That is important. Forbearance and good humour -

Order. I quite agree about forbearance, good humour - but at the right time. Let us now wind up this debate.

I can only say that the answer to all this is the good proletarian habit of a glass of beer, which I have just had with the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, and, therefore, the tolerance and good humour. I say to them, if they are as democratic as we are, there are the rules. Let us play according to the rules. Sit through midnight to sunrise, and down to sunset. We will listen to it all - trivial, relevant, or irrelevant.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Surely.

I want to say that whatever we say from this side of the House is not just for Members on the opposite side to hear.

Order. I think the hon. Member has made that point. I must ask the Prime Minister now to wind up.

I do not want to say anymore. other than this. In the name of parliamentary democracy, let us abide by the rules. These Standing Orders are Queensberry rules. There is the referee, albeit without a gun, Sir. But we have the Serjeant at Arms with a ceremonial sword. I say, play according to the rules because that is in their best interest. If they should go outside the rules, as I say, it is not me that they have to contend with or collide with. I am only the penultimate authority. Penultimate means next to the ultimate. They know the ultimate. So let us play according to the rules. We have abided by the rules. We gave them all the notices, all the opportunities. We wanted to sit through Saturday and Sunday. They did not want to. The- Member for Anson wanted it.

Saturday only.

Yes, he wanted Saturday only. Two Saturdays we have lost. The Member for Queenstown, as usual, in an abrupt manner, did not want to speak to me, Sir, in this Chamber after you had left. He only speaks to me when you, are here, Sir. And he said no -

Order. I suppose that is because he knows he gets the protection of the Chair. But may I ask the Prime Minister again to wind up what he has to say?

And last, the point I wish to make, Sir, is that we have given them approximately one hour and fifteen minutes to type at least two speeches. So let us hear it now.

I am not calling anybody else except a Member of the Alliance.

Mr Speaker, we have spent slightly more than an hour debating the motion for the adjournment. We, from the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance, are prepared to sit right through if it is the desire of this House. But because the trend of the debate is such that it appears that it is nothing but party warfare we will not take part in the voting. But if it is the wish of the House that we should sit, we will be only too pleased to sit. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Order. I have indicated that I will accept a motion for closure of the debate, which does not give the mover of the motion any opportunity to make a reply. If no other Member wishes to speak, I shall then invite the closure of the debate.