Hansard, 1962-01-24

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the 23rd January, 1962, he assented to the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill.

32 p.m.

Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name*. * The motion reads as follows:- That, in pursuance of this national objective of a united Malayan nation, enlarged and strengthened by the addition of our brothers in the Borneo territories, this House declares its support in principle for the plan proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, and agreed to in principle in the Federation Parliament on 18th October, 1961, for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising the eleven States of the present Federation, the States of Singapore and Brunei, and the territories of Sarawak and North Borneo. This motion was first tabled in the House for debate in November last year, to be taken together with two other motions; the first supporting merger in principle, and the second as accepting the heads of agreement published in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, as a working basis for a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. As a result of the long debate on the question of merger, it is not possible to take a vote on ths motion before the second meeting of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee which was held in Kuching from the 18th to the 20th of December last year. This was a meeting intended to bring together all those members of the legislative chambers of the live territories who supported Malaysia in principle and wanted to help the Solidarity Committee quicken its realisation. However, belated though this motion may be, it is not without its value, for it is as well from time to time to have all Members of the Assembly, state for the record, whether they are, in principle, for or against Malaysia, or whether they are, for various reasons, unable to make a stand and, therefore, abstaining from the vote, either openly in this Chamber, or surreptitiously by absenting themselves. However, in moving this motion, I am assured by two facts. Firstly, that members of the Barisan Sosialis have always claimed to support, in principle, both merger and Malaysia and had asked for their representative to attend the Solidarity Committee meetings as a member of the Singapore delegation. We had gladly agreed to the Member for Thomson as their representative and he was present at both meetings of the Solidarity Committee meeting in Kuching last December and in Kuala Lumpur a fortnight ago. Since only those who support Malaysia in principle were invited to attend and the Barisan Sosialis had asked to attend, logically we can assume that they support Malaysia in principle. Furthermore, when the Member for Thomson was pressed to state his stand at the meeting in Kuching, he stated categorically, off the cuff, that he fully supported Malaysia, but he added that he had to ensure that the people of the Borneo territories were fully looked after - as if the people of the Borneo territories could not look after themselves. The other fact which has given me great encouragement was the resolution on West Irian, on which, Sir, there was studious effort made to differentiate West Irian from Malaysia. Sir, taking a stand on any issue, be it West Irian or Malaysia, presents no difficulty to political Parties with an open and straightforward stand like the P.A.P. But Parties like the Barisan who do not stand for what they claim to stand for may find themselves in considerable difficulty if they start supporting things they do not really support. I do not know whether these things were carefully thought out and all the implications made as between a stand on West Irian and a stand on Malaysia. I would have thought that here indeed was the height of contradiction. In supporting the liberation of West Irian as the P.A.P. did, we were supporting the liberation of an integral part of a European empire in South-East Asia, which has still to be freed in order to complete the independence of what were formerly the territories of the Dutch Empire in South-East Asia. And so Afro-Asian nationalists support the right of succession of the Indonesian Republic to West Irian, for Dutch New Guinea was an integral part of the Netherlands East Indies. The Dutch Empire once spread over the 3,000-odd islands now constituting the Republic of Indonesia, and so the Indonesians right y dismiss all Dutch talk of self-determination for a few hundred thousand papuans in Dutch New Guinea as imperialistic nonsense designed to delay matters. So, in the same way, we support the rights of the people of Singapore and the three Borneo territories to be liberated from the British and to join together with the Federation of Malaya to constitute the Federation of Malaysia consisting of all the territories which once formed the British Empire in South-East Asia. Sir, I am happy that the Barisan Sosialis has sided with the Indonesians in condemning the imperialistic powers who support the Dutch in putting forward this excuse of self-determination for the Papuans. West Irian is part of Indonesia, and to Indonesia it must return. But I am disappointed, however, that the same militant anti-colonial spirit vanishes completely when they are asked to take a stand on Malaysia. Here is a concrete issue on our own doorstep on which they can express their anti-colonial fervour to fight colonialism without any danger of being sent, ill-equipped, to land on some hostile shores, or probably be sunk before they are landed. Nobody is asking them to volunteer to risk their life and limb. All we are asking them to do is to take a stand to liberate the three Borneo territories and Singapore to form an independent sovereign nation together with the Federation of Malaya. Sir, from what the Member for Thomson has said for the Barisan Sosialis in Kuching, I gather that having said that he supported Malaysia in principle, he was then interested in taking the Dutch colonial line of gradual self-determination for each individual divided territory. This very same line they condemned when taken by the Dutch on West Irian, but quite shamelessly adopted by them when it suits their Communist interests to oppose Malaysia. So the fierce fighters of the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist friends and supporters were prepared to find women to fight for the liberation of West Irian. Sir, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis was somewhat apologetic yesterday when he explained that he could not find these three women on their records. Even more shameless, Sir, if they had to sacrifice three of their women members, at least, I would have respected them for it. But to find three innocent women, who were not even members of the Barisan Sosialis, and ask them to go out and talk the Barisan Sosialis propaganda line was a heartless and cold-blooded act akin to murder. Sir, the strange thing about the Barisan Sosialis is that they always believe in sending women and children first to the front line. An hon. Member: The Work Brigade!

The Work Brigade and the schools - a very strange characteristic of the fierce freedom fighters. Now, they are actively trying to create difficulty and confusion over Malaysia. They know that with Malaysia there will be a strengthening of nationalist anti-colonial forces, and their Communist anti-colonial forces will be isolated and confined. But that is their problem; a problem that faces those who expound the cause of democracy when they do not believe in it; expound non-Communism when, in fact, they are Communists; and Socialism when, in fact, they mean Communism. Sir, 1962 is likely to be a memorable year in the annals of South-East Asia for two issues, Malaysia and West Irian. I am looking forward during this debate to see what they are going to say and how they are going to vote, or perhaps, whether they are going to vote at all. All good and honest democrats always stand up to be counted. It is only the Communists in democrat clothing who always find it embarrassing when the doctor comes around to remove their democratic clothing for a closer examination. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a pity the Prime Minister again ridicules the volunteers after what I had said last evening. Surely he should pay some respect, if not to the volunteers, at least, to the Indonesian people themselves. He referred again to self-determination. I was very careful to explain last evening to the house, that words like "merger" and "self-determination" have been completely twisted out of shape by the P.A.P. Merger to the P.A.P. means the enslavement of Singapore; merger to other people means equality, justice and democracy. Everybody in this House excepting the P.A.P. says that it is not merger. Similarly self-determination. In our explanation, we have to explain to people who are so dense as not to understand that self-determination in the case of West Irian was meant to be a move for sponsoring a puppet regime for the imperialists. In our case, self-determination would give us an opportunity to decide our own fate and would give us the opportunity to fight for the unity of the people. However, Sir, the Prime Minister in moving this motion is obviously trying to repeat what the Minister for Labour did when he moved the motion calling for support on the principle of merger. It does seem to be a favourite trick of the P.A.P. to talk of wonderful principles of unity, prosperity and what-not and then to smuggle in constitutional changes that will, in effect, frustrate the people's hopes and aspirations under the cloak of these very same principles. In the case of Malaysia, through the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee and other meetings, the P.A.P. would like us and like everybody to get excited over this principle of Malaysia. They want everybody to start shouting, "We support Malaysia." And then when everybody is in an elated mood, the P.A.P. hope to twist this euphoria to mean support for a specific set o proposals which will not be to the best interests of the people but which will, on the contrary, go to consolidate reactionary rule in this region. Sir, the Prime Minister always likes to give us glowing pictures of El Dorados in his various Press interviews, in his various radio forums. But the Malaysia that is being unfolded before our eyes is not a Malaysia that is going to bring equality, freedom, democracy and social justice to the peoples of Singapore, Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak. On the contrary, it is going to spread reaction, injustice, inequality and disunity among these peoples. Sir, we are not going to fall into the trap of concentrating on the principle and forgetting about the details - equally important details - that go to give form, substance and meaning to this principle. Today, we are dealing with people whose first considerations are not the realisation of the hopes and aspirations of the people. We are dealing with desperate and unscrupulous politicians whose first considerations are how to keep themselves in office. And because of that, we have to be very careful. Sir, what is this Malaysia scheme that they have been talking so much about? As far as the people of Singapore are concerned, this Malaysia scheme merely means the P.A.P. White Paper Merger proposals and nothing else - just the P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals. The Federation Government have made it quite clear that Singapore is not going to be accepted and be truly merged with the Federation. Singapore is going to be only a so-called partner with separate citizenship and with no proportional representation. That is, Malaysia's merger and the P.A.P.'s merger are one and the same thing. It is a package-deal. The Tunku has said so many times, "If there is no Malaysia, there is no merger with Singapore." And as we have rejected the White Paper proposals, we therefore similarly reject this motion. Sir, as I have said, the present Malaysia scheme merely serves to consolidate reactionary rule over the entire region. It is regrettable indeed that the P.A.P. leaders who call themselves Socialists should so eagerly support a scheme which strengthens the forces of reaction and colonialism and which is being strongly opposed by Socialist Parties in the whole region. Sir, let it be made quite clear. We do not object to the concept of Malaysia as a concept. The idea of a large political unit in the Malaysian region is not new. It was originally put forth by progressive leaders in Malaya and Indonesia after World War II - and even before that, I understand. The primary object behind the original idea of Malaysia was to advance the interests of the peoples of the region. It was to unite the peoples in their struggle to eradicate all traces of imperialist domination and to bring about political freedom, unity and stability to the entire region so that the peoples can benefit from a planned socialist development of the rich material resources. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis fully subscribe to the concept of peoples in more and more countries coming together for mutual interests and mutual benefits. We will always support any move that will bring about a larger union of countries and peoples and that will help a planned socialist economic development for benefit of all the people. As socialists, we believe that peoples from different lands can live happily together, not in competition, but in co-operation. Socialists do not see any basic antagonism between the interests of the peoples from different countries, and we are confident that the day will come when the whole human race on earth will live happily together as one happy family. Sir, we therefore welcome any move that will genuinely bring about closer relationship between the peoples of the Federation of Malaya, the three Borneo territories and Singapore. But any such move must be based on a genuine desire to bring about greater benefits to the peoples of this region. In other words, it must be motivated only by a sincere desire to advance the interests of the peoples of these territories and should certainly not be for the benefit of imperialists and reactionary forces in this region. If the concept of Malaysia is going to bring about happiness to the people, then the only way is to ensure that the peoples of this region can decide their own future. Let true democracy be practised. Sir, I shall deal with this aspect in more detail later. First, let us ask, how do the British come in? Sir, you will realise that colonialism is on the retreat all over the world. We have seen the upsurge of the Afro-Asian spirit in the struggle for greater freedom and greater democratic rights. The French have been driven out of Indo-China. The Portuguese have just been evicted from Goa. And we see the remnants of colonialism about to be liquidated in West Irian. But what has happened in Singapore and in the Borneo territories? Sir, the British are experienced colonialists. They know their days are numbered as far as this region is concerned. They know they will have to return the power to the people soon. The British are, therefore, faced with two alternatives: either to continue direct colonial rule of these territories in the face of increasing popular opposition, in which case they know that they may eventually lose everything; or to rule indirectly by transferring political power to the pro-Western politicians while continuing to maintain an effective economic and military control over these territories. Sir, these political concessions, however, are more apparent than real as the economic and military control will remain the same as before. Such indirect rule has an advantage over direct and overt colonial rule in that it can confuse certain sections of our people into believing that the colonial master is no more present. But it is not difficult to see that, after all, it will only be just colonialism in disguise and, in fact, it will help to prolong colonial domination. It will also enable the colonial power to boast that it has granted "independence" to its colonies. This is important, Sir, in view of the fact that the United Nations have recently passed a resolution calling for an immediate end to colonialism. Sir, Britain favours or is in favour of Malaysia, and in view of what I have said, do we still need to ask why Britain is enthusiastic about Malaysia? From our viewpoint, there are two reasons, Sir. Firstly, from the long term point of view, this plan will provide the British with a safe means of retreat when the time comes for them to give up direct colonial rule. It will allow the British to continue their economic and military domination of this region by indirect control through their influence over pro-Western local leaders. The present Federation Government appears to be a safe bet for the British, as it has been made very clear that it does not intend to harm British economic interests in this region. Secondly, the British hope that this plan will help to distract the attention of our peoples from the existence of a colonial power by getting us all too preoccupied with the problems of merger, thus putting a brake on our anti-colonial movement. We will be told that the problem before us is not one of getting rid of the British but one of merging among ourselves. And, of course, this problem will be made more difficult by constant harping on the minor difference existing amongst our peoples. Our racial and religious differences will be distorted and emphasised, and our different approaches, to education, for example, will be magnified and made an excuse for obstructing a genuine reunification. Sir, we have seen all these mischievous political games in Singapore before, and evidently they are going to be repeated in the Borneo territories. The British hope that the energies of the people in Borneo will be similarly dissipated in fighting amongst themselves and with the Federation Government, so that the existence of the colonial power will be temporarily forgotten by them. We see clearly why this Malaysia plan fits into the British scheme of things. It helps to divert the people's attention from fighting against the colonial power to fighting among themselves. And it is a move to protect British economic interests. Sir, I do not need to labour on this point any further except to say, in passing, that Malaysia or no Malaysia, we are willy-nilly drawn into a cold war. We already know that as regards the British bases in Singapore, Britain will continue to use them as a matter of right after Malaysia.

Sandra Woodhull agreed to all this.

Britain will only consult the proposed Malaysia Government as a matter of courtesy. Therefore, there is no change regarding the bases, Malaysia or no Malaysia. For example, we learn that rocket launching sites are already being placed around Singapore and V-bombers armed with nuclear weapons are equipped and on the ready. This means that we shall be directly drawn into the cold war between the two power blocs.

You can go to Borneo.

Sir, if our country is going to be used as a nuclear base in the event of a major world war, then the peoples of the whole region will be placed right at the front line. This is not what we want. We want peace and neutrality. We want to be with the non-allied countries of Afro-Asia. The Malaysia that we want is a Malaysia that must not be a pawn of big power politics. It is significant to note, Sir, that the Permanent Secretariat of the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organisation had issued a statement in Cairo on 4th December, 1961, strongly condemning the British plot to rig up a Federation of Malaysia in South-East Asia. The statement said that the purpose of the British in this Malaysia plan is to suppress the national liberation movement of South-East Asia. It calls on the people of Asia and Africa to be vigilant against colonial manoeuvres and to take all necessary steps to frustrate the British plot. Sir, the Western powers are also evidently trying to use the Malaysia scheme to bring about the political isolation of our peoples in Singapore and the Borneo territories from the mainstream of Afro-Asia, which is vigorously led in this part of the world by Indonesia. The spirit of Afro-Asia is the spirit of oppressed peoples all over the world. It is the spirit that is crying for freedom, equality and justice. It is the spirit of young nations throughout the world. It is the spirit of young nations refusing to be drawn into the cold war conflict, of young nations trying to stand on their own feet after centuries of colonial domination, and of nations refusing to be used as pawns in big power politics. The peoples of Singapore and the Borneo territories are largely inspired by the spirit of Afro-Asia. It is this desire to remain neutral and to be free that had led the people of Singapore to elect at the last general elections a Party which then professed to be non-Communist and anti-colonial, but which has since deviated and abandoned both these basic platforms, and now become obsessed with the negative philosophy of anti-Communism. Sir, our wanting to rally under the banner of Afro-Asia, of course, will not be to the interests of the colonial powers, because Afro-Asia means neutrality between the two power blocs and, understandably, the British would like to use the Malaysia scheme to forestall the growing influence of the Afro-Asian spirit amongst the peoples of Singapore and the Borneo territories, and to help keep our peoples under the influence and domination of the Western capitalist world so that we can continue to be exploited and subjugated and become mere pawns in big power politics. Sir, our Prime Minister had on previous occasions referred to Brunei as a possible Kuwait if it did not merge with Malaya. He said that Kuwait had trouble immediately it was given independence. This country has a population of a few hundred thousand people while Brunei has a population of only, say, about 80,000 people. He said that Brunei too is oil-rich and sudden independence might bring new problems. From this, Sir, it is clear that our Prime Minister is even prepared to fit himself into Western designs by souring up relations between the people of the Borneo territories and the people of Indonesia. Let us ask: is it not to imply that if the people of Brunei did not join the proposed Malaysia and so become dominated by the Federation Government; their territory would instead be conquered by Indonesia? That is the implication, Sir. But the Indonesian Government has already made it clear that it has no claim on the Borneo territories now under British rule. So why such an analogy? Is it not a very mischievous thing? Sir, the P.A.P. used to talk about fostering better relationships with the Indonesian people. But now, having lost the support of the people, the P.A.P. leadership is even prepared to help the Western powers against Indonesia. I do not believe -

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

I do not believe, for one moment, Sir, that the Indonesian people, having tasted oppression themselves, would want to force upon the people of Brunei a political system which the people of Brunei themselves do not want. I am sure that Indonesia, as a leader of Afro-Asia in this region, would want to see the people of Brunei -

What about India?

- as free and as equal as they are themselves. It is, therefore, extremely mischievous on the part of our Prime Minister, if he knew what he was doing, to try to stir up suspicion and ill-feelings between the people of Brunei and their neighbours and friends, the Indonesian people. Now, how does Malaysia fit in with the present Right-wing Government of the Federation? Judging from the various statements from the Federation Government and especially from the speech delivered by the Tunku at the Federal Parliament debate on Malaysia, it is evident that the Federation Government is more keen to take in the Borneo territories than to take in Singapore itself. In fact, the Tunku has repeatedly said that he will take in Singapore only if the three Borneo territories come in at the same time. So let us first examine why the Federation Government is more keen to take in the Borneo territories than Singapore. The Federation Government has claimed that it has now changed its previous anti-merger stand and is now prepared to have some sort of merger with Singapore. As everybody knows, aid incidentally, Sir - but I had better leave it alone -

You have not got clearance from your Committee.

I wanted to say, Sir, that when the Federation Government was openly anti-merger, the P.A.P. never dared to call the Federation Government anti-nationalist or pro-Communist. That is what I wanted to say, but I thought that that did not fit in and so -

You have said it already.

But the Federation Government still has a pathological fear of the Chinese population in Singapore. It sees in the addition of large numbers of Chinese from Singapore into the Federation on a genuine merger a threat against the Federation Government. That is why the Federation Government and the P.A.P. have devised a constitutional arrangement whereby the political influence of Singapore citizens will be kept to a minimum, and in which we are denied equal citizenship and the right of proportional representation. Faced with what it considers to be a problem of having to counterbalance the large numbers of Chinese in Singapore, the Federation Government sees in the addition of large numbers of non-Chinese in the Borneo territories a welcome solution to its communal fears and prejudices. But we have heard the Prime Minister telling us over Radio P.A.P. that with Malaysia, by the addition of the Borneo territories, the Communist threat would be diluted.

That is right.

But more to the point is that with the addition of the Borneo territories the Malays, together with the indigenous population of the Borneo territories, would outnumber the Chinese. This is what will really allay the prejudices and fears of those politicians who, very unfortunately, analyse political situations only from a communal angle. Sir, we have known of this Malaysia plan of the Prime Minister of Singapore for quite some time. Long ago he had talked of Malaysia as being more acceptable to the Federation Government than just a merger between Singapore and the Federation, because the Malays would then form the predominant part of the population. It is extremely regrettable that the Prime Minister who called himself a socialist should try to play on the communal fears and prejudices of the people. Sir, the Malaysia plan appeals to the Federation Government perhaps also because of, if I may say so, the rich oil resources of Brunei. The yearly revenue of Brunei is about $130 million, whereas its annual expenditure, so far as we know, is only about $30 million. This is an annual surplus of about $100 million which will, of course, help the Federation Treasury after Malaysia. So I wonder if this is the real attraction of the Borneo territories for the Federation Government. In their eagerness to bring the Borneo territories under Federation rule, the Federation Government and the P.A.P. are trying to rush the people of the Borneo territories into making a quick decision. Thus we see attempts to convert the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee from a purely consultative body into semblance of a decision-making body. Sir, we do not wish to interfere with the affairs of the people of the Borneo territories -

Quite right.

- because we believe that the people there are fully capable of deciding their own future. And we regret there has been no genuine attempt so far to consult the views of the people of the Borneo territories on this Malaysia plan. The proposed Commission of Inquiry to assess the views of the Borneo people, like all official commissions, will be just an eye-wash. Already there is a lot of quarrelling over the choice of the Chairman. The Tunku has said many illuminating things on the true purpose of this Commission. Let me quote him in the Straits Times, Sir, of 6th December, 1961, on page 1, column 8. This is a whole paragraph: `"If you appoint the wrong type of Commission and get certain recommendations which you find it is not possible to accept, then the whole question of Malaysia will collapse," said the Tunku.' Then there is another passage. It is on page 20 of the same day, column 8, and it says: `The British public know they have very honest and real friends. We need the right Commission to recommend the right things to accelerate this merger.' The right Commission to recommend the right things for our Prime Minister so that he may still be in office. It is quite clear from this very frank statement by the Tunku himself that the real purpose of the Commission is that it must, under all circumstances, produce quickly a very favourable report for his Malaysia proposals. It is clear too that the Commission is not intended to be an unbiased body for the proper assessment of the views of the people of the Borneo territories. It is meant to be -

You expect to be made Chairman of the Commission?

- a rubber stamp, Sir, so as to enable the Federation Government to declare officially that the Borneo people have been consulted and that they favour the Tunku's Malaysia plan. How nice!

You pray the Commission to come over!

Sir, this is, to say the very least, not a very democratic way of consulting the people of the Borneo territories. We know that the peoples of the three Borneo territories have a genuine apprehension about this whole Malaysia scheme. All this talk about the present Malaysia proposals bringing economic benefits to the Borneo territories sounds very hollow indeed, Sir, when we remember that there is not only unemployment in the Federation itself but also that the Federation Government has to borrow money from Brunei to ease its own economic difficulties. It has been suggested that this Malaysia scheme is going to bring freedom and independence to the peoples of Sabah, Brunei, Sarawak and Singapore. But, Sir, is this really going to be so? Freedom does not mean the exchange of the British flag for the Federation flag. It must mean, when translated into actual practice, an increase of political freedom and democratic rights -

More subversion!

- so as to bring about an increase in the standard of living of the people. But, Sir, this evidently is not to be so. The people of the Borneo territories are demanding the right of self-determination. It is only fair that they should have this right before they are given a new constitutional set-up. Among the political Parties in the Borneo territories which are demanding self-rule before Malaysia is set up are major political parties like the Party Rakyat of Brunei and the Sarawak United People's Party. The Sarawak United People's Party issued a policy statement on the 6th of December, 1961, saying that it was opposed to plans for a Malaysia before Sarawak was granted independence. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis do not wish to have anything to do with the various manoeuvres and intrigues of the P.A.P. to induce the people of the Borneo territories to accept the Malaysia proposals. We do not wish to take part in the smooth high-pressure sales talk of the Prime Minister. We know that the people of Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak are right now demanding the right of self-determination. Let it be so. No one can refuse any people the right of self-determination. That is their fundamental democratic right. If the people of the Borneo territories demand elections, then they must be given elections.

You are talking just like the Dutch now!

Let me quote, Sir, the joint communique of the Sarawak United People's Party and the People's Socialist Front dated 10th November, 1961. They have this to say, Sir. This is only one paragraph, Sir: `We firmly oppose the concept of Malaysia hut reiterate that my constitutional association of Malaya with the Borneo territories can only be brought about by those peoples and only after the right of self-determination has been vested in them and that the colonial Governments of these territories should not have the right to enter into negotiations with the Malayan Government on behalf of the people of these territories.' Sir, we wholeheartedly agree with their views. Let me also quote from the joint statement of the Malayan People's Socialist Front, the Party Rakyat of Brunei and the Barisan Sosialis of Singapore. Here are two short paragraphs: `We believe that any constitutional association of Malaya with the Borneo territories must only be brought about after the right of self-determination has been vested with the peoples of Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo. It is a matter of urgency that the Borneo territories should achieve self-determination before they decide on the nature of their association with Malaya and Singapore. We feel that any proposal which does not advance the self-determination of the people must be firmly resisted. We urge that any move to unify the territories and peoples must be based on equality, democracy and justice, and must advance the interests of the people.' Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis would not like to have anything to do with all these attempts of the British Government, the Federation Government, and the P.A.P. Government to deny the people of the Borneo territories their right of self-determination. We wish to have absolutely nothing to do with their attempts to substitute the elections with commissions and consultative committees. We know why the Prime Minister postponed the debate on Malaysia. It was partly, I think, to enable him to speak after the announcement of the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission. But - The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. The Member is imputing not only malicious, but completely unfounded allegations as to my motivations. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, the postponement was forced upon us by the lengthy seven-hour speeches Members of Barisan Sosialis were making.

That is not a point of order at all. The Prime Minister will have his opportunity of replying to that.

I was saying, Sir, it was to enable him to speak after the announcement of the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission. But the people of Singapore have had official commissions and committees and what-nots before. The people know just how useful these official commissions and committees can be in the assessment of our true feelings, especially when they are appointed by outsiders and are not responsible to our people here. The proposed Commission of Inquiry, which, is supposed to assess the views of the people of Sabah and Sarawak, is appointed not by the people of these territories, but by the Governments of the Federation and Great Britain, and will be responsible only to these two Governments and not to the peoples of the Borneo territories. What are the terms of reference of this Commission? The five-man Commission has to take into account - I will quote from the Straits Times, 18th January, 1962: `... the express agreement of the governments of the United Kingdom and the Federation of Malaya that the inclusion o North Borneo and Sarawak (together with other territories) in the proposed Federation of Malaysia is a desirable aim in the interests of the peoples of the territories concerned-'. That, Sir, is in column 2 of page 20. The Commission, therefore, is going to Borneo with their minds already made up. Members of this Commission with preconceived ideas are going to wear coloured glasses in their assessment of the views of the people. I have no doubts, Sir, that their ears will also be deaf to all those voices of the Borneo people who state that it is not in the interests of the people of the Borneo territories to join the Malaysia scheme. Their ears will be deaf to all those voices which say that the Borneo peoples want their rights of self-determination and political freedom from colonialism in independence and not in the Malaysia scheme. Sir, this is the Commission that is going to be the sole judge of what are supposed to be the views of the Borneo people. The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. Sir, this is not a debate on the Commission. I do not want to stop the Member for Queenstown in criticizing the Commission. It is not our Commission. The debate is on the principle and the concept of Malaysia. If the Member for Queenstown wishes to have a debate on the Commission by all means let him table a motion on it. Sir, we are now discussing the concept of Malaysia. Is it relevant to go into, a tirade on the Commission? We are not interested in the Commission.

I understood the Member for Queenstown to say he rejected this motion completely and he is now giving reasons why he is rejecting it completely. That is the theme of his speech. He is perhaps going a little too far into details criticizing the Commission. [Interruption] Order. He is, I think, possibly going a little too far when he starts criticizing the Commission. All he can say is that he does not agree with the Commission. The Commission may be going there, as he says, with coloured glasses. That is all. But other than that, I think the Member for Queenstown is perfectly in order.

I might add, Sir, I had previously explained that it is no use just agreeing to principles without knowing what the details are that give form, substance and meaning to those principles. And we know how principles can be twisted by the P.A.P. to suit their own meaning. So in opposing this so-called principle of theirs, we have to explain and make it quite clear that the form and substance which they recommend are not in the interests of the people. In this particular case, the Commission has a lot to do with the Malaysia concept, Sir. So, I crave your indulgence if you will allow me to set my thoughts in proper order.

Order. I think the point is that the Member for Queenstown may say that he does not believe the Commission would serve its purpose and leave it at that. He cannot now go into the details criticizing the Commission as such.

I will not go into details, Sir, except to say that in this Commission, not a single man from among them comes from the Borneo people. It is very unlikely, under those circumstances, to expect the Commission to find out the true reflection of the views of the people of Borneo themselves. Two of them are from the Federation and three are from Great Britain. It is very unlikely that the members of this Commission will write up reports that are not in agreement with the policies of these two Governments. Sir, anyway, we do not believe that any commission, no matter how well intended, could be a substitute for a secret ballot. We believe that it is absolutely fundamental that any constitutional change for the Borneo territories must be decided by the people themselves and not by appointed so-called leaders and reports of carefully selected commissions. At this point, Sir, if I may be allowed to hark back a little. This is to explain about our quarrel regarding those few Chinese words. These Chinese words meant "imposed downwards". You remember, Sir, last night we had different interpretations as regards those few Chinese words. Now, here I have expressed the views very clearly and those few Chinese words actually mean that we cannot expect anything good from things which are imposed from self-appointed leaders and from those people who happen to be in power. Anyway, Sir, attempts are now being made to sugar-coat the Malaysia proposals by offering the people of the Borneo territories local autonomies over this and that. We in Singapore know that local autonomy over subjects like labour and education is meaningless without -

Internal security.

- control over internal security. I do not wish to deal with the points that have already been dealt with during the merger debate, but recent developments have thrown new and important light on this whole question of local autonomy in the context of Malaysia. But I will now skip that. Sir, and wait for a more opportune time to mention them. Sir, this only goes to prove that the much boasted terms, autonomy in labour and education after Malaysia, is nothing but a mere deception, utterly meaningless when internal security is in the hands of the Central Government. We have all along said so, especially on subjects like education. Sir, the P.A.P. after 2½ years in office, because of its broken promises, its well-known arrogance and its dictatorial attitude, has completely alienated the people who voted it to power. Instead of rectifying its mistakes, it has chosen instead to go further and further away from the people. Evidently it thinks that its political future lies in obtaining the support of the Federation Government against its political opponents in Singapore. It knows that without Malaysia the P.A.P. merger may not come true, and without merger, it faces certain defeat at the next general election. Sir, perhaps now we can understand why the P.A.P. appears to be more enthusiastic than even the Federation Government itself in trying to persuade the Borneo territories to accept the Tunku's proposal. It is all part of the P.A.P.'s efforts to salvage its own political future and the future of the P.A.P. leaders. These leaders in their desperation have tried to apply the Communist smear to all who dare to voice their protest against the present Malaysia scheme. Hoping perhaps to curry favour also with London and Washington, the P.A.P. has now become out and out anti-Communist. Sir, the bogey of Communism has always been raised by politicians in power whenever they feel insecure. Permit me to quote a passage from a book by Mr D. N. Pritt, Q.C. - a world famous lawyer; whom all the underprivileged peoples throughout the world have great respect and love for, and whom the Prime Minister in his early days and before he became Prime Minister, used to be proud to be associated with. It is a book called Spies and Informers - people whom the P.A.P. have implicit trust in. It is on page 45 and the paragraph reads as follows: `It has often been the habit of governments not merely concentrate their propaganda and other manifestations of hostility on whichever section of public opinion or activity they think most likely to bring about the defeat of their policies but also to smear that section of opinion and any other section that causes them anxiety with whatever label may be judged most likely to prejudice the public.' Seventy years ago [this book was written in 1958], the label was Radical. Forty years ago, it was Socialist or Labour. 1,900 years ago, I fancy it was Christian. In 1921 and today it was and is Red or Communists. At any rate, to the F.B.I. - this chapter refers to the F.B.I. of the United States, Sir - at that moment, it was Red, and in Singapore today the same smear is repeated, (MaCarthyism twice over).

On a point of information as to the author of the book.

Order. The Prime Minister was probably engaged in conversation. The author was given as Mr Pritt. [Interruption]

A person whom the Prime Minister was ready to sit with at a tea talk.

A very good boy.

Sir, Communism has become synonymous with effective opposition. The Prime Minister must still clearly remember that not so very long ago he himself was smeared a pro-Communist by the Member for Cairnhill and Chew Swee Kee [Interruption].

Did I call you a Communist?

He dare not deny it, Sir. It is true.

On a point of order, Sir. I promptly denied it. It was untrue that I was pro-Communist. It is untrue now to say that I did not deny it.

Order. The Member for Queenstown must remember that if he invites an answer, the proper thing for him to do is to allow a Member to get up on a point of elucidation and to elucidate. I think the Member for Cairnhill wishes to elucidate. Perhaps the Member for Queenstown will give way.

At no time during my period of office did I describe the then Member for Tanjong Pagar as a pro-Communist. But I will now describe him as a pro-Communist in the light of his book.

The whole argument is clinched. I do not have to say anything further. But unlike his anti-Communist friend - the former Chief Minister, the Member for Cairnhill - our Prime Minister evidently is thinking of higher stakes today, Sir. He is not content to be just a local anti-Communist leader. He wants to be an anti-Communist of international repute. That is why he not only applies the Communist smear to his opponents in Singapore but also in the Federation and in the Borneo territories as well.

We invited them to a forum and they never turned up.

He flies all over the place just to call them Communists - to make sure that his voice is heard over the air in Washington and in London - Washington especially, Sir. Our Prime Minister is now therefore even willing to become a tool of power politics in substituting anti-Communism for the spirit of Afro-Asia. Today, our Prime Minister and his P.A.P. colleagues by their own doings have become completely isolated from the socialist movement throughout the Federation, Singapore and the Borneo territories.

But they attended the socialist front conference.

We were invited.

Today the P.A.P. leaders have completely become identified with the Right-wing political movement in the region. The people are saying, Sir, that wherever the Tunku goes our Prime Minister is sure to follow.

Do not forget the Member for Cairnhill!

That is why they work so well together nowadays, Sir. Knowing how arrogant our P.A.P. leaders are, I am sure they are not very happy in their present role. They have to dance to the tune of the Right-wing political leaders and Parties in order that they may survive. This is a very sorry spectacle for the Prime Minister. He can try to laugh it oil and put up a front, hut it is a real climb-down for the chest-forward strutting, arrogant Prime Minister. It is a real climb-down for leaders who at one time could just snap their fingers and others would have to dance. Sir, the P.A.P. leaders have only themselves to blame for thinking they can secure their political future by obtaining the protection of reactionary forces in the region. Circumstances have forced them to collaborate with reactionary political Parties like the S.P.A.

I thought you were looking for their votes at one time.

The point is, today there is only talk of the Communist menace. Even this morning, we see headlines in the papers about Communism. For the last few days, we have been given tit-bits about Communist this and Communist that, and here now we see this booklet about Communism.

All written by your adviser.

Why the glee and hopeful expectancy of purges and oppression of political opponents? Let me remind our Prime Minister that in this very same House on 12th September, 1957, he said - I am afraid I do not have a copy of the Hansard - at Volume 2, column 2634.

That is the trouble when other chaps write their speeches for them.

If I may borrow it, Sir. Anyway, I have it written down here and it can be confirmed. The Prime Minister said: `We would like to remind the Labour Front Government that democracy and political stability cannot be brought about just by periodic mass arrests. A government which relies only on purges and has no positive programme with which to win over the people to the democratic cause is doomed to failure.' Let the Prime Minister remember that

Read it carefully - "only".

He cannot now safeguard his political future by political manouvring and constitutional manipulation so as to fix his political opponents. That will not ensure his political future. The only way, Sir, is for him and his colleagues to return to the people. An hon. Member: He will have to resign first.

Order. I was just wondering how all this ties up with the motion.

The Prime Minister has talked a lot about Communism and I just want to -

Defend the Communists.

- answer in passing what he has been trying to tell everybody, that we in the Barisan Sosialis are Communists or, if not Communists, pro-Communists. Anyway. Sir, I was saying the only sure way for him is to return to the people. He must try and re-establish the faith they had in him. The people put him to power and they can similarly take away the power from him. Those who betray the people's trust will only incur the people's wrath. Let them return to the people. It may not be too late. Sir, the P.A.P. claims to have a mandate for this White Paper on merger from the people in 1959. Be that as it may, let the P.A.P. twist and turn as it likes. But as I have previously said: does the P.A.P. also claim to have a mandate for this Malaysia proposal? Can they say that this Malaysia proposal was on the election platform of the P.A.P.? No amount of Malaysia Weeks will allow the P.A.P. to say that the Malaysia scheme is part of their election promises. In 1955 the Prime Minister challenged the then Chief Minister, the Member for Anson, to seek a mandate on the P.P.S.O. issue. Now it is an issue that involves the lives and future of all the people of Singapore. Therefore, let the Prime Minister seek a new mandate from the people on this matter. Sir, I do not need to go further, but let me now summarise. (1) it is completely unrealistic for us to talk about the principle of Malaysia out of context to what is actually being done and to what is happening now in the name of Malaysia. It will cause confusion to the people if we merely discuss the principle without also considering the equally important details that give meaning to this principle. (2) In practice this proposed Malaysia to the people of Singapore means nothing but the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, a set-up in which Singapore -

Order. I must remind the hon. Member that if, by the expression "phoney merger", he means the heads of agreement set out in Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 then he has already been ruled out of order by using the words "phoney merger". That proposal has been accepted by this Assembly. There cannot be a reflection on a vote of this Assembly.

My apologies; I forgot about it, because to us the White Paper has been phoney all along and that is why it escapes my memory. As I have said, Sir, in practice, the proposed Malaysia to the people of Singapore means nothing but the P.A.P.'s White Paper on merger, a set-up by which Singapore will be merged with the Federation without equal citizenship status and without proportional representation. We, therefore, oppose this motion just as we opposed the P.A.P. White Paper on merger. Malaysia and P.A.P.'s merger are one and the same thing under different names. (3) While we will always support the concept of a Malaysia based on equality, democracy, mutual respect, mutual interests and self-determination, a Malaysia which will benefit the peoples of this region, we are unequivocally opposed to the present Malaysia set-up which is aimed primarily at consolidating the forces of reaction and colonialism in this region. (4) It is a scheme that is co-sponsored by reactionary and colonial forces in our country, and to which the P.A.P. is lending support, because its leaders believe that it will help them to ensure their political future. (5) It is a scheme which will allow the perpetuation of colonial rule in disguise and which will continue to involve our people in the cold war conflict between the big powers. (6) It is a scheme aimed at forestalling the political progress of the peoples of Singapore, Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak, and so at isolating us from the influence of Afro-Asian nations. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis do not wish to have anything to do with this British-sponsored Malaysia scheme. 4.05 p.m.

If it please you. Mr Speaker, the concept of Malaysia means the integration of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the three North Borneo territories into one nation. Whether it originated before or after the war, whether it originated in imperial minds or whether it is sponsored by imperialists, to me it seems irrelevant. But one time, Sir, my pathological antagonism for Communism was such that any idea that emanated from the Communists was to me a danger signal and I was prepared to reject the proposal without consideration. Maturer experience has led me to the conclusion that that approach was unreasonable. And today, Sir, I honestly believe that an idea should be considered on its own merits without prejudice as to its source, and I am prepared to give the same dispassionate consideration to a concept whether it is imperialist-sponsored or whether it is Communist-inspired. I say that in my view and in the view of the Workers' Party, the concept of Malaysia is tremendously important and valuable: (1) to the North Borneo territories themselves, because it will bring about their immediate emancipation from colonial rule and theft participation in a wider and more meaningful sphere of activity than they could otherwise achieve; (2) to the Federation, because it would immeasurably enhance the economic and political stature of this nation; (3) to Singapore which is and would be the natural pivot of this new nation, by ending the cramping political and economic remnants of imperialism and freeing our people to participate in healthy national activities, for today neither side offers any alternative to merger except a blank wall. It is only the Workers' Party that has an intelligent alternative; (4) it is of value to South-East Asia by bringing about a broad-based, well-balanced, multi-racial, democratic nation - the crescent of the South Seas - a vigorous force of stability in a very vital area of the world. (5) And finally, Sir, I believe the concept is of value to the world because it achieves unity instead of fragmentation and offers an example of genuine multi-racial harmony and co-operation on the broad road of human progress through democratic conduct. I repeat, Mr Speaker, the concept of Malaysia is, to my mind, a significant contribution to healthy progress to millions in this area. I say this right at the outset because I have received unhappy reports about reactions of the Borneo territories, and I note the reaction of representatives of a large segment of our own population. My impression, Mr Speaker, is that the Borneo territories are, in fact, in the position of a bashful girl faced with an arranged marriage, who says, "I am too young to marry. Please can I hold on to Uncle Selkirk's hands for a few more years?" It is a remarkable tribute, Mr Speaker, to the Earl of Selkirk that the Borneo territories and even political Parties in Singapore, other than the Workers' Party, should view him as a protector. Let us face the truth. Let us face the facts. The presence of White domination in Asia is no longer appropriate and is abhorrent. The Earl of Selkirk is not a protector. His very presence, charming though he is and carrying gracefully his many qualities, is an offence to the people of Asia as long as it embodies the domination of a foreign race. I would wish to assure the people of the Borneo territories that we all in Singapore believe in Malaysia in all sincerity. I think I heard rightly the Member for Queenstown himself saying that he accepts in principle the concept of Malaysia. I know that if we in Singapore were offered the same terms, Mr Speaker, as the Borneo territories to come in as a brother and not as a junior partner, we would all joyfully and unhesitatingly accept. Unfortunately, however, Singapore is being asked to come in as a junior partner - hence our misgivings. This does not apply to the Borneo territories who have a generous unqualified offer from the Federation "to come in as our blood brother". It is not for me, nor is it for this Assembly, to speak in the name of the people of the North Borneo territories. And I find it difficult to understand the Member for Queenstown when he objects to the motion on the grounds that it would in some fashion implicate the North Borneo territories. We here are being asked to speak in the name of Singapore. We have a right to do this, as to our feelings about the concept of Malaysia. I say, Mr Speaker, it is my genuine hope, although no more than a hope, that the people of the Bornean territories, who should best know their own requirements, will see their way to accepting this concept of integration of their territories into a great and stable nation. Mr Speaker, a statement was made in this House during the debate on West Irian of a character which affects the issue before this House on this motion, and from a person who does not lightly make statements of policy. The Member for Thomson said that the Malaysia plan was anti-Indonesian. This I cannot accept. At that time, I sought clarification from the Member for Thomson in a friendly spirit, because, Mr Speaker, I would like this to be clearly understood, as I seek to mislead none: in this instance I find myself at variance with the Barisan Sosialis. It does not arise from any issue of enmity or opposition in so far as the Workers' Party's relations with the Barisan Sosialis are concerned. We have found them courteous, friendly and sincere. It is alleged that they are a Communist front organisation. For ourselves we have no means of ascertaining the truth of that statement, although, quite frankly. Mr Speaker, we would very much like to know the truth. It is not in the spirit of political enmity such as one expects from the Front Benches towards them that I take issue with the Barisan Sosialis, in the name of the Workers' Party, unequivocally on the statement of policy that the Malaysia plan is anti-Indonesia. To say this is, to my mind, to suggest only one thing - if I am wrong, I hope I will be corrected - to me, that statement could only mean that the Barisan Sosialis considers that the three territories of North Borneo should become part of Indonesia and not part of Malaysia.

Could I clarify that? Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

There is no such intention in those words, Sir,I think the Member for Thomson has said that there are certain people who have put that up as an explanation of Malaysia in relation to Indonesia. We ourselves have never for one moment said that the North Borneo territories should ever belong to Indonesia. I have also clarified that in my speech.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the words still remain seared in my mind, and I think they will find it in the Official Report, that the Malaysia plan is anti-Indonesia. How could anything be anti-Indonesia, quite apart from the possibility - and the only possibility that arose to my mind - that the Barisan Sosialis were under the impression that we were taking from Indonesia territories that should ultimately belong to her. But since that impression has been corrected - and I take it, though they have not said so categorically, that they do not suggest that Indonesia has any right, moral, legal, economic, historical or otherwise, to the North Borneo territories - I ask whether the Barisan Sosialis have considered the Indonesian concept of nationalism and whether, in fact, the concept of Malaysia is not completely in conformity with the Indonesian concept of nationalism. And if it is, then how can it be anti-Indonesia? Mr Speaker, the very core of the Indonesian concept of nationalism is that what was a unity under colonial rule should be a unity in independence.

Hear, hear!

I am not speaking, Mr Speaker, without authority, and I would like to quote that authority so that there should be no further repetition of what could become a very mischievous concept in this area. I quote from a document which the Indonesian Consul-General was good enough to send to me only recently called "West Irian - an essential part of Indonesia" issued by the Indonesian Army Information Service dated 1st November, 1961, about two months ago. Page 6: `Indonesian unity. This wave of nationalism is not founded on similarity of language or similarity of religion or similarity of race. What has been the binding force of unity in nationalism is the common colonial past.' Then, Mr Speaker, this document quotes the representative of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations Organisation, Dr Surjarwo, when speaking before the Ninth General Assembly. I would like to follow his words. They are not long, Sir: `For many decades, indeed, when Indonesia was still the Dutch colony known as the Dutch East Indies, Indonesia fought for its freedom and independence. It fought to be free from colonial domination. It fought for transfer of the Dutch East Indies from colonial status to that of a free, independent national state of Indonesia. The boundaries of the state can, therefore, only be the boundaries of the former Dutch East Indies, neither more nor less.' Notice that - "neither more nor less". `Our national movement for independence, the national movement of the Indonesian people, consequently and naturally concerned itself with the freedom of what was then the Dutch East Indies, the freedom of the country in which they lived.' And finally, Sir, a very short paragraph that spells out the Indonesian official approach and official policy towards North Borneo. `If all the statements quoted above have been fully understood, it can be understood why the Indonesian people have no thought at all nor any desire for other territories close to Indonesia, like North Borneo, the eastern part of Timor Island or the eastern part of New Guinea which never has been part of the former Dutch East Indies territory.' That is a very instructive booklet, Sir, and I will be tabling it. I therefore ask this House to notice that in the words of this official document and in the words of the Indonesian representative to the United Nations, the Indonesian Government seeks neither more nor less than the boundaries of the former Dutch East Indies. No more. The North Borneo territories were never part of the Dutch East Indies. And again no desire for other territories close to Indonesia like North Borneo. You see, Mr Speaker, on the basis of the political philosophy of the Indonesian people and Government, unity of colonial administration makes for unity in nationalism. The North Borneo territories, the Federation of Malaya and Singapore were all a unity under the colonial administration of the British Colonial Office. On that basis, the basis of the Indonesian concept of nationalism, all these territories then form a single nation. How can it then be said from any angle that the Malaysia concept is anti-Indonesia? I trust the Member for Thomson, who will be speaking no doubt, will clarify that position. Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister has interjected - sometimes he indulges in interjections of a useful character - he has pointed out that the Communist Party of Indonesia is against the Malaysia concept. In fact, you will find in today's Straits Times a very interesting and factual article on the subject. I think we ought to know, Mr Speaker, whether this concept that the Malaysia plan is anti-Indonesia is part of the Barisan Sosialis policy, because, and I say this as one friendly to the Barisan Sosialis, as one convinced of the sincerity of many of its people, and I do not laugh and in no spirit of derision or sarcasm that I make this statement, I say that if that is their policy, then it is not a policy based, on the wishes or the interest of the people of Singapore. And it can only he inspired from totally foreign sources. Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

It is almost overcoming to hear words of approval from the Government Front Benches. Mr Speaker, however, in so far as this motion is concerned, in order to ascertain the plan therein referred to, it seeks support in principle for the plan proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation and agreed to by the Federation Parliament, I have to inform the House that I have repeatedly since November sought from the Federation the official transcript and report of what transpired in Parliament, and I regret to inform the House that I am officially advised that the official reports are not yet in print. Mr Speaker, that being the case, I have to fall back upon the Straits Tunes and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to look at the Straits Times of the 17th October, 1961. There on page 8, in a prominent part, we find the Prime Minister's motion, if I might read it: `That this House agreeing in principle with the concept of Malaysia comprising the eleven States of the Federation, the States of Singapore and Brunei and the territories of North Borneo and Sarawak, endorses the Government's initiative in taking action for its realisation the progress of which will be reported to the House by the Honourable the Prime Minister from time to time.' Mr Speaker, I think you will agree with me that there is not one word of any plan there. It refers to the concept of Malaysia, approves the Government's initiative, that is to say, for starting the ball rolling, and notes that the Prime Minister will be reporting to the House. Not one word about any plan at all either in this motion or any agreement, Mr Speaker, by the House on a plan! I would say, Mr Speaker, that this motion is misleading in that it speaks of a plan proposed by the Prime Minister and a plan agreed in principle On the 18th of October. Mr Speaker, in order to bring this motion in line with reality, I would like to move that the word "this" in the first line be left out and there to insert the word "the"; to leave out the word "plan" in line 4 and there to insert the word "motion", and to leave out the words "in principle" in line 6. Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker, the change of the word "this" to "the" in the first line is merely to tidy it up, because there is no reference back to anything, this motion standing by itself. The important amendment there is to leave out the word "plan" and there to substitute the word "motion", and I shall come to that and the reasons for that amendment. Finally, Sir, to leave out the words "in principle", because though the Federation can agree in principle to a plan - if in fact I am tight that there was no plan - then it did not agree in principle to the motion. It agrees to the motion proper. Mr Speaker, the main object of this amendment is, in fact, to substitute the word "motion" for the word "plan." I had originally thought of deleting all the words there and just substituting for the Malaysian concept comprising the following territories, but it seems to me, Sir, that it would be churlish on the part of this House not to give recognition to the fact that it is the Initiative o, the Prime Minister of the Federation to which we are indebted for having made or put on the road of realisation this valuable concept which has been in cold storage for so long. It seems to me that the Barisan Sosialis as well as other Members should be able to accept the motion in its present form, Mr Speaker, because it seeks support for the motion of the Prime Minister of the Federation which merely agreed in principle with the concept of Malaysia comprising the 11 States of the Federation, Singapore, Brunei and the territories of North Borneo and Sarawak. Mr Speaker, I cannot see that anybody could possibly quarrel with the principle enunciated by the Federation Prime Minister. Let me say unequivocally that we disagree with the details if the White Paper proposals are part of the details - and they seem to be part of the details - of the working out of this plan in principle. The Workers' Party is against the proposals in the White Paper because they are not based on equality. But there is nothing in the motion of the Prime Minister of the Federation which in any way suggests any limitation to the basic principle of integration of all these territories as equal States with equal rights and responsibilities. Sir, it is on this basis that I support and move my amendments and I trust the Government Benches as well as the other Parties of the Opposition will all get together on the principle - it is a valuable principle; it is an important principle. Let us enunciate at least our firm beliefs. The Member for Queenstown has said, "I believe in the concept of Malaysia, but you cannot discuss it except in the context of the practical aspects in- which it is worked out." I say with respect to the Member for Queenstown, the leader of the major political Party in the Opposition, that that is not so. I approve of the principle of merger. E do not approve of the White Paper. I approve of the concept of Malaysia wholeheartedly. If and when we arc presented with the White Paper which embodies unacceptable aspects for the integration of these territories, then we can take objection to those aspects and even vote, if necessary, against the whole plan of realisation. But now with the word "plan" removed and the word "motion" substituted, it is my earnest hope that this House, which has shown itself capable of two unanimous motions, will do a hat-trick and go on to the third and most important motion of all, a motion that affects us and our future, that we can all agree on the enunciation of the principle of the Malaysian concept, the integration of all these territories in equality in a united nation. Mr Speaker, as the mover of the amendment, I have no opportunity to speak again. I do not know in what spirit my amendment will be received. I do submit it to the earnest and honest consideration of all Members of this House.

The Original Question was: "That, in pursuance of this national objective of a united Malayan nation, enlarged and strengthened by the addition of our brothers in the Borneo territories, this House declares its support in principle for the plan proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra At-Haj, and agreed to in principle in the Federation Parliament on 18th October, 1961, for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising the eleven States of the present Federation, the States of Singapore and Brunei, and the territories of Sarawak and North Borneo." Since which an amendment has been moved, In line 1, to leave out "this" and insert" the". The Member for Anson has indicated there are two subsequent amendments, In line 4, to leave out "plan" and insert "motion". In line 6, to leave out "in principle". The Question is, "That the word `this' proposed to be left out, be left out." If that meets with agreement, we could deal with the first amendment first, ft seems to be an amendment which is typographical more than anything else. Could I have some indication from the Government Benches whether that is acceptable?

Sir, is it in relation to the word "this"?

Yes, in the first line.

We accept that. Amendment agreed to.

That leads us to the next two amendments, i.e., to leave out the word "plan" in line 4, and there to insert "motion"; secondly, to leave out the words "in principle" in line 6. The Question is, "That the word `plan' proposed to be left out, be left out," and in the debate that follows, Members could range over the amendment to leave out the words "in principle" in line 6. It seems to me that that amendment could well be debated at the same time as the main motion. If there is no dissenting voice, I would suggest that the debate proceed not only on the Original Question, but also on the two amendments, so that the questions on the amendments will be put at the end of the debate. The only person affected is the Member for Queenstown. If he wishes to speak on those amendments, I am sure the House will permit him to do so. If there is no dissenting voice, I propose that we proceed on those lines. There is no dissenting voice. 4.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody in his right frame of mind could object to the concept of Malaysia - a concept which will bring the territories of the present Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei together into a bigger single political and economic unit and which will provide for the 10 million inhabitants of this new country wider opportunities for both political and economic advancement. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not worry ourselves how the concept of Malaysia came into being. Some people say that if Malaysia comes into being it will save the P.A.P. Government from destruction; some people claim it will save particularly the Prime Minister from political eclipse. Whether this is so or not we are not worried about it. Some people have claimed that after the Hong Lim by-election, the Prime Minister of Singapore managed to convince the Federation Government that for its own security and in its own interest, it must do something about Singapore. But the Federation Government, being worried about the racial composition of Singapore's inhabitants, would not take in Singapore unless they could take in the Borneo territories as well. Mr Speaker, Sir, these allegations could be true or could not be true. But as socialists we are not worried about whether these allegations are true or not true. As socialists we feel that with a single and bigger political entity there are more opportunities for the advancement, both politically and economically, of the people of all the regions. After all, all the people living in these regions have a lot in common, not only in that they inherit a common British colonial administrative past, but also in that the races which comprise the three Borneo territories are the same except for some slight qualification. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many advantages concerned with Malaysia. But people in Singapore should be allowed, for instance, to go to the Borneo territories either to get jobs or, if they are businessmen, to go and establish business there. People in Singapore should also be allowed to go to the Federation in order to get jobs and do other things; and people from other territories should also be allowed to come to Singapore. There must be free travel in Malaysia. The education institutions and other opportunities for education in Singapore can be open to students and people of the other territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the concept of Malaysia, but as the Member for Anson has said, we do not agree with the detailed plan on Malaysia as announced by the Federation Government. According to the plan, Singapore would come in as a partner and not as an equal State like the three Borneo territories. According to the plan, there would be no freedom of travel between Singapore and the Borneo territories or the Federation of Malaya. According to the plan, there would be no one single citizenship for all the inhabitants of this island. Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that in a real Malaysia which comprises the 10 million inhabitants of the five territories, there should be one common citizenship - a Malaysia citizenship - which should be given to all the people who pledge their loyalty and allegiance to this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, this concept of Malaysia is incompatible with the merger plans as announced in the White Paper, because, according to the merger plan as pronounced in the White Paper, there would be two types of citizenship - one for Singapore and one for the Federation of Malaya. And from what we have gathered, the Federation of Malaya and the Borneo territories will have one common citizenship. According to plans which have been announced from time to time, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malaysia there would be two types of citizenship and there would be three nations. The three nations would be the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the three Borneo territories. There would be two types of citizenship - a Federal citizenship and a Singapore citizenship.

And the Malaysia nationality? An hon. Member: One nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the Minister for Culture, Commonwealth citizenship, which was a concept to bring the peoples of the Commonwealth together, did not bring the people together, as the concept of Malaysia nationality could not bring the people of Malaysia together. Although the people of the Federation of Malaya also are Commonwealth citizens, what have they in common, for instance, with Australia, which forbids Malayan citizens to live there, although both are Commonwealth citizens? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only in a common citizenship for all the people in these territories that we would be able to build a real Malaysia whereby everybody would share a common political destiny. Mr Speaker, Sir, there must be free travel for all the people in Malaysia. According to the plan, there would be restrictions on travel. People coming to Singapore, people from Singapore going to the Federation or Borneo are restricted, and this is not conducive to building a strong Malaysia. We have seen the advantages, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the European Common Market, where people from each country can go to the other country. Although the European Common Market is not a single political entity, yet it is a common economic entity and the people are free to travel. This has in the past few years enhanced the economic prestige and economic potentialities of the respective countries which comprise the European Common Market. Mr Speaker, Sir, we understand that in the plan for Malaysia there would be no common market. I hope the Government would clarify whether there would be a common market for all the territories which comprise Malaysia, and whether the people from each respective region can travel freely to other regions. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not for the Members of this Assembly to say whether the people in the Borneo territories want Malaysia or not. It is up to the political leaders in these territories to say, on behalf of their people, whether they want Malaysia or not. A strong Malaysia could be an important factor in the politics of this region and we believe that if a strong Malaysia is not committed to S.E.A.T.O. or any of the power blocs, it will be good for all the people in this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the amendment moved by the Member for Anson because we support the concept of Malaysia although we disagree with the details pronounced from time to tune on Malaysia. 4.50 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is expected that this motion will be vociferously opposed by Members of the Barisan Sosialis because we all know how pig-headed the Dutch colonialists were in regard to West Irian - a motion on which we discussed yesterday. Similarly the pig-headedness of the Barisan Sosialis in regard to their attitude towards this motion on the Federation of Malaysia. 4.51 p.m.

It is not surprising because all the points put forward by the Barisan Sosialis clearly show their true colours and attitude. It is clear that the points put forward seem to represent the views of the Bornean people. Why was it that Members of the Barisan Sosialis did not quote the statements issued by other political Parties? There are many political Parties in Borneo and Sarawak. Perhaps it is because they are fraternizing with their friends in Borneo with whom they are in sympathy. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I go further on this motion or reply to the points raised by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, first let me recall the history of our fatherland. The original inhabitants of the Malayan Archipelago came from Indo-China about 2,000 years ago. They migrated into the Malayan Archipelago in large numbers. Before the advent of Western colonialism, there was already a nation in the Malayan Archipelago and, as God willed it, Western colonialists came and subjugated these people for centuries. Western colonialism established a strangle-hold on the people until the outbreak of World War II. Three colonial powers were still dominating the Malayan Archipelago: the Americans in the Philippines, the Dutch in Indonesia, and the British in the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo territories. Indonesia showed its strength by ejecting Dutch colonialism by the use of force except, of course, that the question of Irian Barat still remains to be solved. The Philippines also showed its determination - of course, it was not Communist determination - in their struggle for freedom and the Americans were forced to grant freedom to the people of the Philippines. Similarly in the Federation of Malaya, the British Government immediately after World War II tried to introduce the Malayan Union which was strongly opposed. They had no alternative but to grant freedom to the Federation of Malaya. Singapore was, granted the, right of self-government according to the Constitution. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Indonesian people were prepared to declare their independence and the Philippines achieved independence, then it is the duty of the people of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo territories to remove British colonialism from this region. The map of the Malayan Archipelago showing territories belonging to the British, Dutch and American colonialists will be deleted. Only colonial puppets and colonial stooges are prepared to tolerate colonial domination and to fraternise with their colonial masters. They refuse to join hands with their brethren in an independent State. They are merely satisfied with the status of self-government which is the objective of the Barisan Sosialis. As I said earlier on, the Dutch have adopted a pig-headed attitude towards West Irian by wanting to give self-determination to the Papuan people in order to perpetuate Dutch colonialism in West Irian. The Barisan Sosialis in Singapore are no different from the Dutch. They make use of a few people who are afraid of internal security. It is these few people whom they claim to represent the masses. Surely their voice is not the voice of all the people of Singapore. Is it suggested that the P.A.P. Government which has moved this motion is not representative of the people? We can likewise ask the Barisan Sosialis whether they represent the people. If they are not satisfied, then we can go back to the country. If they are elected, then they can claim that they have been, in fact, elected by the people under the star of the Barisan Sosialis. It is just like a cock which crows - as I said yesterday - which has no meaning whatsoever. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the arguments put forward by the Member for Queenstown -

I think we will adjourn for tea. I suspend this sitting until half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

The Original Question was as appears in item 1 on the Order Paper. Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out "plan' in line 4 and there to insert "motion'. The Question is, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out." As has been indicated, the debate may range over the next amendment, which is, To leave oat "in principle" in line 6. As further agreed by the Assembly, the debate may range over the Original Question and over the proposed amendments. I have caused to be circulated the motion which was agreed to by the House of Representatives in the Federation of Malaya.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I said earlier that if we are of the opinion that the Dutch in West Irian are stone-headed in their attitude, then in Singapore too such an attitude is to be found among the Barisan Sosialis. In the course of his speech, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, said that Malaysia will not bring about prosperity, justice and equality to the peoples of Singapore, Brunei and the North Borneo territories. I am really surprised. Mr Speaker. Who are these "peoples"? It is only the pro-Communists who feel -

Order. I think the Chair has been certainly intimidated. I ask the Member not to raise his voice in that manner. He can raise his voice in any other manner, but pointing at the opposite Benches and raising his voice is intimidating - intimidating not only the Chair but, I am sure, some of the Opposition Members. Inche Yaacob (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no intention to intimidate you, especially on a matter as important as this. In confronting a matter of this magnitude, I would not resort to intimidation. As I said just now, it is only the people who are pro-Communists, Communist stooges, or open front cadres of the Communists who feel that in the future Malaysia they will not find happiness, prosperity and justice. This is clear. If they are imbued with a nationalist stand, then they will have no fear whatever, and it is even more so if they believe in parliamentary democracy. One of the arguments they put forward is their analysis - the question of communalism in the future Malaysia. The Member for Queenstown said that earlier the Federation of Malaya did not wish to merge with Singapore because it feared the Chinese majority in Singapore. But with the integration of the Borneo territories, i.e. Brunei, Sarawak, and North Borneo, the number of votes of the Malays would be more than that of the Chinese - and that is the reason why Malaysia is proposed by the Federation of Malaya. It is also alleged that we base Malaysia on communalism and not on nationalism. I believe it is too clear that - I had my doubts before, but now it is clear to me - if we can tell the sex of fish in the water, we can even more easily tell what the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis is. I would like to ask the Barisan Sosialis: who are the people who are against the concept of Malaysia, and which Party is against the concept of Malaysia? I have no wish to dwell at length on this matter of the people of Borneo. I have no wish either to speak for the people of the Federation of Malaya. But I would like to voice my opinion concerning the people of Singapore. Who are the people who oppose Malaysia? I say it is not a matter of communalism. If a referendum is to be instituted and carried out on a racial basis between the Chinese, Indian and Eurasian people, I say the Chinese will support the concept of Malaysia. I am confident that 99 per cent of the Indians, with the exception of the Member for Thomson and a few others, will accept it. And the majority of the Chinese, if they are not misled by people who play on racialism, will accept it too. The talk that is going on in the coffee-shops is very much on the same lines as that uttered by the Barisan Sosialis. It the people of Singapore are to rule the Malays -

Order. The Member must contain himself. I do not like his pointing at the Members opposite. Perhaps if the Member would point at me, that would satisfy him. Let him point at the Chair.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, as I said just now, there is no nationalist fighter in Malaya who wishes to bring about a nation in which he is not loyal to his country. None of them will bear out what the Barisan Sosialis have said. In conformity with your advice, I will try to suppress my temper. I was not intimidating, Sir; it is just that it is my natural way of debating. If we want to be good leaders, we should not only see one side of the matter. If we are to be good drivers, and if we look only to the left, it is possible that we might meet with a collision. And if we only keep looking to the right, that too might lead to a collision. What we must do is to look to the right, to the left, and to the front, and at times it is important that we glance at the rear-view mirror to see what is going on at the back. Only by this means will we be able to proceed on our way with safety. The concept of Malaysia is accepted by all Parties in Singapore - 100 per cent by the Malays, and more than 70 per cent by the Chinese if they are not misled by the Barisan Sosialis which harps on communal lines. Likewise, the Indians and other races. Therefore, if any concept is accepted by the majority of the various races, it is clear that this concept is a very good one and would conform to the desires and intentions of the people. The Barisan Sosialis say that this concept is opposed by the people. What do they mean by "the people"? If this Malaysian concept is opposed by members of the Barisan Sosialis, I would like to pose a question to them: which concept are they in favour of, and what kind of concept do they stand for? Let them say it clearly. Is it a concept of joining up with the Philippines, or Thailand, or Taiwan, on Indonesia? Let us know. In the Federation Parliament, they have already accepted in principle this concept of Malaysia, the details of which are to be clarified to the Parliament. The stand of the Barisan Sosialis is the same as if to say this: we oppose the marriage because we do not know what kind of child would be begotten of that marriage. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only after the marriage that the child would be begotten. But what they are worried about is whether the child would be a boy or a girl. First of all, I say, decide on the concept, whether or not you wish to continue with the marriage and keep the marriage going. Then it is only when the child is begotten that we decide on its name and how it is to be brought up. We should not bother ourselves with what the child is going to be even before we consider the proposal of marriage. In considering a nationalist issue of this nature, we must consider this from the party stand. This is very important. If they can forget the political ideology which they believe in on a nationalist issue such as this, then I feel the matter could be resolved well. The reason is that the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, has stated that Malaysia is only for the benefit of the reactionary elements. But if Mr Seenivasagam or Mr Lim Kean Siew was the leader of the Federation of Malaya at the moment, would he say so? So I say their sentiment is a party political sentiment. They are merely voicing the ideologies which they believe in. Mr Speaker, Sir, another question now arises. They say the British are behind this concept of Malaysia. This is the same as saying that any nation that gets independence from colonialism, whether it is from British colonialism or whoever it may be, is to be considered as false and phoney. Is that their stand? If that is their stand, then it is the same as saying that India, Ceylon and Burma have achieved their independence from the British without having to resort to force of arms. Do they mean to say that those independent countries which have achieved their independence is a phoney kind of independence? The stand of the Barisan Sosia1is is clear for everyone to see. They go so far as to say that whoever has received independence from the British - be it India, Ceylon, Burma or Pakistan - are puppets of the British. They dare not say so openly in regard to those countries. But, according to them, whoever has received independence by peaceful means are the tools of the British, who are behind it. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been alleged before that the independence of the Federation of Malaya is a phoney independence. I believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Reds especially have alleged that the independence is a phoney one. The question to be considered is that independence has to be achieved first of all. How is it that we should bother about the ownership of the house before it becomes ours? It is after we have occupied it that we could set it in order. Is the constitution of the future Malaysia going to be one that will not adhere to parliamentary democracy? If it is not to be so, then the representatives of the people elected by the people are the people who should set right whatever is wrong. I do not know whether these people fear that on the coming into being of Malaysia, members of the open front Communist organisation would not have a chance to be active in Parliament. They would have no opportunity to subvert the people. Apart from that, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad that in discussing the concept of Malaysia, Members of the Barisan Sosialis have mentioned the good relationship of the Federation of Malaya. Singapore and Indonesia. I say clearly that there is not a single nationalist movement in Indonesia which is against this concept of Malaysia. We have heard the views of the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, Mr Roslan Abdul Ghani, on this concept of Malaysia. As has been stated by the Member for Anson, Indonesia has no wish to take in the Borneo territories. The Barisan Sosialis merely are trying to sour up relations between Singapore and Indonesia. There was only one party, Mr Speaker, Sir, which is dead against the concept of Malaysia. That is the Communist Party of Indonesia led by Aidit. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need to hide behind their cloak. The corpse of the elephant cannot be covered by a tray. Whoever is against the concept of Malaysia is indeed pro-communist. In Indonesia itself there is not a single nationalist movement which is against the concept of Malaysia, except, of course, the Communist Party of Indonesia. It is said that the P. M. I. P, of Malaya is against the concept of Malaysia. But what they actually want is a Melayu Raya, which is greater in extent than what is being proposed. This particular Patty is already a communal Party. What they want is a concept of Malaysia which embraces a wider area of Malaysia than what is being proposed. Mr Speaker, Sir, in discussing this nationalist proposal, we must sink our political differences. Let us not bring up communalism which can damage the solidarity of the people in their march forward to bring about a nation which has undivided loyalty. We should remember that we are Malayans for Malaya and in the interest of our motherland. 5.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to say, on behalf of the Alliance, that we accept the motion as amended by the Member for Anson.

Hear, hear!

Sir, a lot of hard things have been said by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis in regard to this very important motion which concerns the Malaysian territory getting away from British colonial control. Sir, as far back as November 1960, when the S P.A. knew that merger with the Federation was not possible because of, may I now be so bold as to say, the Communist content in the P.A.P., we thought that there must be another step forward in our constitutional advance, and since merger was closed to us as a result of the coming to power of the P.A.P. Government, the S.P.A. in 1960 said, and I would like to quote from its paper of November 1960: `Singapore's political future Merger road closed During the last general elections the S.P.A. advocated merger with the Federation of Malaya and we firmly believe that had we been returned to power we would have achieved our objective during our term of office. But this road to independence has now been closed by the folly of the P.A.P. Government. Other avenues However, the S.P.A. does not believe that because this road has been closed we should cease to look for other avenues for independence. We believe that owing to the changed political conditions now prevailing, it is unrealistic to try to seek a merger with the Federation. We should readjust our political thinking on the question of how Singapore should achieve its independence. We believe that we can best achieve our objective of independence for Singapore by advocating a political union of Malaysian States. Firstly, Singapore would join the Federation of Malaya and later with any other neighbouring territories willing to come into this political union which would become a virile union of sovereign States within the Commonwealth.' That was in November 1960. I can say here that as a result of that statement of policy, I have been having discussions with the Tunku on the future of the relationship of Singapore with the Federation, and also the Bornean territories. There was a number of friendly discussions and I was glad that on 27th of May, at a foreign correspondents' luncheon, the Tunku for the first time gave a talk on closer relationship between Singapore and the Federation and on a greater Malaysia. Since then, the P.A.P. has been cashing in on that and has done their best to work towards the realisation of that plan. It is not for me to say here whether the P.A.P. has done it with a political motive or in order to save themselves from extinction. But suffice to say that there has been a greater cry of merger with the Federation and a greater Malaysia. Sir, there have been talks in the Bornean territories themselves and there have been a lot of statements coming out from leaders in those territories, some for and some against. But with the appointment of a Commission, the leaders in the territories and the people there can voice their views before the Commission and the Commission will be in a position to assess the views of the people of the Bornean territories and give a report. For the Barisan Sosialis leader to say that the Commission will be appointed there just to carry out the wishes of the two Governments which have appointed them, that is to say, the British Government and the Federation Government, is a grave distortion of facts and a reflection on the integrity of this Commission. No doubt there was a lot of misgivings and a lot of discussions as to who should be the Chairman. Tunku Abdul Rahman, being a forthright and frank man, always likes to say his views in public and does not beat about the bush. He game out straight with a statement that unless they have a Chairman who is knowledgeable in the matter and who will lead the Commission and investigate impartially, the Commission may fail. One must remember this and, in regard to this, I would like to tell the Barisan Sosialis that there has been a lot of talk coming out of the Bornean territories. The people there say that while the British Government say one thing and agree with Tunku Abdul Rahman on the desirability of a Greater Malaysia, the Government officials in these territories are doing their best to dampen the people's desire for a Greater Malaysia. Therefore, it is to be expected that whoever becomes the Chairman of the Commission should be one who is known to be impartial and will be impartial. I can say that Lord Cobbold, who has now been appointed the Chairman of this Commission, is a very impartial man. He will be able to inquire into the feelings of the people in the Bornean territories. Sir, all the meetings of this Commission will surely be made public. There will be no cloak and dagger meetings. I am sure the meetings of the Commission will be open to the public. There will also be Press reports. Not only the newspapers in Malaya will be interested, but I think newspapers throughout the world will also be interested in the investigations of this Commission of Inquiry. I would ask the Barisan Sosialis not to stick to the wrong idea that this Commission is there to do what it is instructed to do. What it is instructed to do is to inquire from the people whether or not they are in favour of Malaysia. Sir, I do not know what the findings of this Commission will be, but there has been an indication that more and more people in the Bornean territories are alive to the thrill of Malaysia. They want to be free of British control. But while they want to be free, they too want to be assured that they will be able to carry on. Sir, while on this subject of Malaysia, which includes closer relationship between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, I would like to touch on Press reports a few days ago reporting a statement alleged to have been made by the Chairman of the P.A.P., the Deputy Prime Minister, that the P.A.P. was trying to claim credit for achieving merger. That, I think, is wrong. The P.A.P. did admit even as far back as May 1961, that prospects of a merger were quite dim. But because of a change of attitude in the mind of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who felt that it would be better to have a Malaysia to ensure that the political and economic future of the people in this area, who were closely connected during the British regime, should come together under one political unit, it was then that the P.A.P. came in. Because they are the government of the day, discussions have to be held with the P.A.P. Government. I would ask the P.A.P. Government not to try to claim political credit for anything that they have not done. To be more correct, it was because of the presence of the P.A.P. Government that the relationship with the Federation was bad for the past two years. It is only until recently - it might be because of the realisation of the error of their ways and the parting of company of the Communist group in the Party - that there has been a change in the attitude of the Federation Government. That I do not know. The P.A.P. Government ought to know better. Sir, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis brought in these communal fears. He suggested that because the Malays feared the Chinese in Singapore, that was why the Federation Government wanted to bring in the Bornean territories in order to balance the number of the Chinese population in the whole of Malaysia. Sir, it cannot be denied that in the Federation of Malaya. Tunku Abdul Rahman has been very realistic in his approach to the problems of the country. He has at no time in his office as Prime Minister of the Federation done anything that has been against the Chinese. He has been treating the races fairly and squarely. Yet the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has the temerity to infer that Tunku Abdul Rahman would be wanting to do something against the Chinese because he fears the Chinese. In this particular case, it would seem that the Barisan Sosialis are very keen to look after the interests of the Chinese in Malaya. The P.A.P. accuse the Barisan Sosialis of being Chinese chauvinists. I do not know whether this is a fact or not a fact. But I find it difficult to believe they are Chinese chauvinists if they are prepared to come out on the West Irian issue and support President Soekarno, whose policy in regard to the Chinese in Indonesia is well known. They cannot be Chinese chauvinists. In one case, we have a man here in Malaya who has done his best and has even staked his own political future and integrity and said that all races shall come together and live together as one big happy family. Yet that man is attacked. In the other case, they had a very big portrait of their great leader at their great mass rally in Geylang Serai. Sir, the concept of Malaysia - it is inevitable that Malaysia will arise. We - the Federation, Singapore, Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei - have been under one colonial master and because there has been this desire on the part of tile British Colonial Office to retain their territories for as long as they can reasonably hold on to them, they have therefore not allowed the Bornean territories to develop politically at the same pace as Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. We are much ahead in so far as political evolution goes. But for the Barisan Sosialis to suggest that Malaysia should await the self-determination of the Bornean territories is to say that the British colonial masters can remain in Borneo for the next 10 or 15 years. Singapore, after the war, started with this political evolution. It was only in 1948 that elections were held. From 1959, II years after, we have internal self-government. Now we are going ahead for independence with merger with the Federation, and yet the Barisan Sosialis do not quite like the idea. They do not even like the idea that the Bornean territories need not have to go through all the stages that Singapore has gone through, but to come straight into a Malaysia as units of an independent Malaysia. I do not know their way of thinking; I would not like to be uncharitable and suggest that the longer there is colonialism in this territory the easier it will be for Communist forces to work because they will keep on whipping up the people on this anti-colonial slogan. Therefore, once the colonial masters are out of the picture, there is nothing more to whip up because it will be difficult to rouse the nationalists of the countries to work against their own interests. I cannot understand why the Barisan Sosialis should be so much against Malaysia, which means that the British will be out of Malaysia. They are against it. I cannot understand that. Of course, it is now left to the people of the Bornean territories. It is not for us to say what political future they should have. It is now left for them to go before the Commission which has been appointed and which will be sitting quite soon, and tell it what they would like to have for their own political future. We can only express the hope that they will see the same concept as we have, that they, our brothers who live in Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei, will awaken to their call of Malaysia. We look forward to the day when Malaysia will become a reality and all of us, who were living together under one colonial master, will live together in peace, happiness and prosperity as freed brothers from colonial control. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, of course, as usual attacked the Internal Security Council. They could not understand why the Internal Security Council should be vested in the hands of the Central Government Sir, internal security is pan-Malaysian if there is a Malaysia. What happens in Borneo will affect Sarawak, Brunei, Singapore and the Federation. So what happens in Kuala Lumpur will affect Singapore and vice versa. Therefore, internal security is pan-Malaysian and, being pan-Malaysian, the control of internal security should be vested in the Central Government. It is as simple as that. It should be vested in the Central Government because internal security affects the whole territory. When we were at one time fighting hard for closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya - that was before the Tunku's talk to the foreign correspondents Association - we did say that the Federation Government would, of course, have the final say on internal security, because even if we were to have a joint committee of Singapore and the Federation working on internal security, but because the Federation is a bigger territory, bigger not only in area but also in population and in annual revenue, the final say will, of course, be in their hands. So the P.A.P. in agreeing to surrender internal security straight to the Central Government, to say the least, do not like to carry on this responsibility. They would like somebody else to do the work for them. It is for the P.A.P. to explain why they take that kind of line. It is a funny line: the Prime Minister of Singapore going to the extent of spending money on "The Battle for Merger" describing a man a Communist and saying that he has evidence to prove that the man is a Communist and still not doing anything about it. The Government of the country has the security of the people in their custody. If they believe that the Communists or the Communist front line, the central line or the back line are people who are out to damage the security of the country, then there is only one course of action to take. But if they do not believe that, then what is the point of saying that the handwriting experts have already proved that this Communist document is in the handwriting of Mr Lim Ching Siong? The September debate of 1957 was referred to by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis. At that time it was the Prime Minister who, sitting on this side of the House, described the Lim Yew Hock Government as most undemocratic and doing all sorts of things against his comrades who were good, democratic people fighting against the colonial cause. Now he has even gone to the extent of publishing a book to say how right I was. If the Government really mean what they say, there is only one way open to them: they either look after the interest of the country or they do not. If they do not, there is only one answer. 6.20 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt in my mind that the concept of Malaysia is due to sincere and genuine national leaders in Malaya, especially in the person of Tunku Abdul Rahman. I am forced to mention Tunku Abdul Rahman in this matter because he initiated this concept of Malaysia. The Malaysia Plan is still being pursued despite certain sections who are opposed to it. It is clear from the results of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee that all the political Parties in the various territories support this Malaysia proposal. At the moment, we should expect every citizen in the five territories to give his wholehearted support and to have nothing to do with anything that will sabotage the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. It is clear that those quarters which have issued misleading and disruptive statements do not wish to see the peoples of these five territories live in peace and harmony. We have heard the arguments that the Federation of Malaysia Plan will give more opportunities to every citizen in the field of economy and politics and in various other spheres. From past experience gained in political developments here, it can be safely said that more encouragement will be given in these spheres. From the beginning we know that because of the multi-racial composition of the people of Malaya, it is almost impossible to solve the differences which may arise. But with the emergence of a leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, and also of Sir Cheng Lock Tan, these two have been able to cement friendly relationships between the two major races in Malaya. As a result of this, the struggle to achieve independence for Malaya was pursued relentlessly without any bloodshed. It can be said that if by a stroke of the pen the British colonised Malaya, they were also expelled from Malaya by a stroke of the pen. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have every reason to be proud of our achievements. At the same time, the work of nation-building and of further strengthening the unity of the various peoples in Malaya must be carried out and opportunities must be given to all citizens. But we cannot expect to see results within a short space of time. It will take a considerable period of time before we can see results. The leaders must be sincere and honest, otherwise there will be chaos in the country and this will lead to the destruction of the State with consequent suffering to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, our position today is this. Certain sections of the people in their sincere desire to bring about happiness are bound to meet with opposition. There will be many difficulties which will have to be overcome. Of course, we must also not blind ourselves to the dangers around us - as the Tunku said in a speech which came from his heart. Sir, the motion before the House urges each and every citizen of Singapore who wants to show his undivided loyalty to ths country to support this plan. As I said earlier on, the plan will bring us a step forward and it will enable us to continue with the progress which has been achieved in the Federation of Malaya. I am compelled to say, and I will continue to say to the Barisan Sosialis, that when they oppose this motion, they attempt to play the obsolete game, that is to say, the Federation of Malaysia is intended to counter balance the predominantly Chinese population in Singapore by the inclusion of the Borneo territories. I strongly repudiate this allegation, Mr Speaker. As I have said, the fears and misgivings of the various communities have disappeared, especially among the Malays when we have seen what has happened with our own eyes. But what exists among the people, Mr Speaker, is that there is no genuine loyalty to the State. This is not only prevalent among the Chinese but also among the Malays. I say that the Malays cannot accept Communism. They are prepared to oppose Communism tooth and nail. So the tactic or manoeuvre of the Barisan Sosialis is to flog a dead horse. They hope that by so doing, the people, who do not really understand the objects of this Malaysia plan, will be worried. But I say this on behalf of the Malays in Singapore: we have given talks on this plan and they fully support this concept of a Federation of Malaysia. They now await with great interest the establishment of a Federation of Malaysia, as is contained in the motion before the House. Mr Speaker, the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, has also employed another tactic by saying that the Malaysia plan is anti-Indonesia plan. I have explained, Mr Speaker, that the Barisan Sosialis is toeing the line of the Communist Party in Indonesia. We have read in an article today that the Communist Party in Indonesia not only opposes but condemns the Malaysian plan as a colonial intrigue. But they have forgotten that what we consider most vital must be realised and that is that on achieving independence the nation must be able to give the people food, clothing, and so on. It is not just a matter of independence as the people will then be in an impoverished state with no bright prospects for them or for their generations. So accusations designed to sour up relations between the people of Indonesia and the people of Malaya are motivated by political bankrupts. They have nothing to explain to the people how they can obstruct the formation of Malaysia. They have ridiculed the Federation of Malaysia. For instance, they say that the people of Brunei oppose the Malaysia plan and that the Federation of Malaya is keen to take Brunei because Brunei is a rich country and that territory has been given to the Federation of Malaya by the Government of Brunei. They also say that, in fact, the Federation Government has accepted a loan of $40 million out of $100 million offered by the Brunei Government without any interest. This is an example which clearly shows the mutual agreement on the part of the Brunei Government to help the Federation of Malaya in its future development plan. There is no basis for such an allegation that the Federation of Malaya has territorial ambitions. Such an allegation is without foundation. The Borneo territories are still under colonial domination. So this Malaysia plan strengthens the peoples of these territories and at the same time free them from colonial domination. If we are genuinely anti-colonial, such a noble plan as this will bring about prosperity to all sections concerned by negotiations - be it with the British Government or with any other Party. There is agreement from all Parties to form Malaysia as enuniciated by Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj in the Federation Parliament in October 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is really unthinkable that any loyal and sensible Singapore citizen could be opposed to the principle of a Federation of Malaysia. Sir, even if we ask a secondary school student this question - "If you look at the map of South-East Asia, do you think Singapore can survive and prosper economically by being isolated?" - he will at once answer that Singapore's survival and prosperity must depend on the good relations of the regions around her. If there is a move to tighten up relations and bring closer the parts which have been kept together by the British but not brought together voluntarily, I am sure the student will say: that is a very good move. Sirs history shows that there are these trends by which countries get to know one another better and come together on a federation or on a confederation basis; they grow stronger and they become more prosperous. But when they divide and split up, they become weaker and poorer. We see that even in politics - where parties break up, they become weaker; where they get united, they become stronger. That is simple, and I therefore wonder why our Barisan friends at this point cannot agree when so many other political groups can see the necessity for greater strength and prosperity through closer relations and groupings. Sir, I would like to ask our Barisan friends or anybody who is opposed to the Federation of Malaysia, this question: can Singapore really survive and prosper economically to be able to give employment and a decent livelihood to its ever-growing population by being isolated? Can it be left out of a Federation of Malaysia and still prosper? Hitherto we have had the traditions left behind by the British, who really had a Federation of Malaysia, Sir, because there was the Commissioner-General for South-East Asia with the different Governors governing the different colonies, and they got together once in a while at a conference in Singapore. Naturally divergent policies that would be injurious to Singapore would not be allowed. But if Sarawak, North Borneo, Brunei and the Federation were to adopt different policies hostile to Singapore, we in Singapore would be bound to suffer. Sir, I remember the time when we had a Commonwealth Parliamentary Regional Conference here - meeting in a room in this House. The Barisan Sosialis Party had not as yet been formed. But if their leader had been present at those meetings, I think perhaps his attitude would have changed.

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it in order for the Minister for Culture to do his homework and read his newspaper in this Assembly?

There is a Standing Order and I had better read it for it to be understood. The Standing Order is Standing Order 48, paragraph (d): `Members shall not read newspapers, books, letters or other documents except such matters therein as may be directly connected with the business under debate.' I think I have seen the Minister for Culture busy under-lining certain words. I take it he is reading passages directly concerned with this debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was at the point where I was describing what happened at those meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Regional Conference held in the Library in this House. Sir, I remember well the Leader of the North Borneo delegation, Mr Donald Stephens, standing up and, in a very forthright and blunt manner telling the rest of us how fearful the North Borneo territory was of this Malaysia idea. They feared that their Civil Service would be Malayanised instead of Borneonised, and how they, being more backward, would be left behind and would lose through this kind of Federation and so forth. But when he found that we were appreciative of all their fears - because the Federation people were fearful of Singapore, and Singapore citizens were fearful of Federation citizens - and we shared with them similar fears, but that if we really had the desire to come closer together there would be adequate safeguards for all these fears, Mr Donald Stephens got up and said, "It looks as if we are all of the same mind. We realise these fears and, therefore, we should really now stop talking about these fears and get down to practical realities." There was also a member of another delegation, Sir, who had in his pocket a draft of a speech which was against the idea of a Federation of Malaysia. But as he listened to the arguments and the sincerity of the speakers in their desire really to help one another, he decided not to deliver his speech. I was glad when I found that out afterwards. It shows that when we really get down to brass tacks and realise that there are fears, we must not ignore these fears. But if we are willing to provide safeguards for all these fears then the fears disappear. There is trust. Sir, I am sure that if the Barisan Sosialis leader had been there and had felt the atmosphere in the conference, very likely he would have changed his attitude. Now to arouse our fears of Indonesia, I think, Sir, is not contributing towards the welfare of the citizens of this part of the world. If we know these fears, we want to remove them. I believe that having agreed to the principle of the Federation of Malaysia, the constitutional experts could provide safeguards for all these fears. I understand that one of the delegates at one of his subsequent meetings said that he was glad that out of the discussions they had arrived at one principle to which they had agreed. There would be unity in diversity. So we have stressed that that is the principle which Singaporeans in particular favour, because we have diverse interests sometimes. We have diverse fears. But we can be united in our loyalty and in our desire to contribute, each his part, to the general well-being of the people of this place. I do hope, Sir, that on second considerations, our Barisan friends will realise that they can play a great part by not applying the brakes or throwing a spanner into the machinery because they are against the P.A.P. We too have been against the P.A.P., and in many things we too cannot agree with the P.A.P.; but, Sir, when it comes to an issue like this, which is for the good of our people and our children, we should really rise above party differences and welcome an idea that can bring benefit to all concerned. 6.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody of any repute - not even the Communists and their stereophonic, high fidelity tape recorders in this Assembly - have opposed Malaysia in principle.

Order. That is rather an extravagant phrase used about stereophonic, high fidelity tape recorders. I do not know whether that was meant to apply to Members of the Assembly or to hidden tapes. But if that expression is meant to apply to Members of this Assembly, it might appear to be offensive. Perhaps the Minister could withdraw that extravagant phrase.

As you wish, Sir, I withdraw those words. Nevertheless, everybody in this House knows how repetitive the Members of the Barisan could be. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, for example, support Malaysia in principle; just as they support merger in principle; just as they support democracy in principle; just as they support non-Communist socialism in principle.

Do you not?

Nobody doubts it. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, this does not deprive them of their right to reject in practice what they support in principle and, as I shall show later, the Barisan Sosialis, at the behest of their Communist manipulators, oppose Malaysia in practice. However, the fact that the Barisan Sosialis and other opponents have to accept Malaysia in principle is proof that they recognise that Malaysia is historically inevitable and logically irrefutable. In fighting what is historically inevitable and logically irrefutable, the opponents of Malaysia know that they have launched on an enterprise that must end in defeat and disaster for them. But in embarking on such a foolish encounter they are themselves the helpless victims of their own machinations. They are caught in a dilemma they cannot resolve. Their political philosophy and practice is built on a pathetic fallacy - the fallacy that in the Malaysian region Communism can triumph against the mounting tide of nationalism. This essentially is the fallacy which is responsib1e for the dilemma in which the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors find themselves over the issue of Malaysia. They cannot deny the desirability or inevitability of Malaysia but they have to resist its realisation because it is, at the moment, inimical to the interests of Communism. In other words, the Barisan Sosialis want to roll back the tide of Malaysia but every time the waves break they have to scoot for dry ground. A good indication of how difficult it is for them to resist the tide of Malaysia was their reaction to the question of merger - for, in the final analysis, merger and Malaysia are integral parts of the same historical movement. I do not propose today to deal with the merger question which had been thoroughly thrashed out in this Assembly. However, I would like to make one observation which substantiates my point that the Malaysia movement is the wave of the future - the inevitable process of history which not even the Barisan Sosialis and their manipulators can halt in the long run. As you know, Sir, at the end of the debate on merger, when everyone was laboriously scrapping the bottom of the barrel for fresh ideas on the subject, the time came for a vote to be taken on the matter. Instead of boldly declaring their stand, the Barisan Sosialis walked out on the pretext that freedom of debate was being denied.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Point of order.

Mr Speaker, was one of those who walked out, and I object to the use of the word "pretext".

The use of the word "pretext" imports a matter of opinion, and that is the opinion of the Minister. If it is the opinion of the Minister for Home Affairs, he is entitled to voice it.

Yes, Mr Speaker, incidentally I have forgotten the Member for Anson also followed the Barisan Sosialis in the walk-out. Nevertheless. Mr Speaker, it is my submission that the Barisan Sosialis walked out because they felt in their bones that for all their protestations and lengthy discourses, they could not halt the irresistible drive towards merger. The same feeling of helplessness and inevitable defeat is evidenced in their reactions to Malaysia. They may claim to support Malaysia in principle but they have the uncomfortable feeling that Malaysia is a noose tightening slowly about their necks. Let me state why we think that Malaysia is inevitable and desirable and why the anti-Malaysian forces have failed to halt the Malaysian movement. The idea of Malaysia is not new. It has been mooted by different peoples at different times. We know that immediately after the last war progressive nationalist and socialist leaders championed the idea of Melayu Raya - a vast Federation of Malay-speaking States stretching from the Philippines to Malaya and Indonesia. The Communists, too, joined in the cry of Melayu Raya because at that time Communism enjoyed considerable influence and prestige throughout Asia and the Communists were therefore of the view that a Melayu Raya would be a Communist-directed Melayu Raya. However, at that time, the concept of Melayu Raya did not accord with political realities in this region. For one thing, the concept of Melayu Raya was merely an incidental weapon in furtherance of the real and major objective - the elimination of colonialism. Melayu Raya was merely one more battering ram against colonialism in the armoury of the nationalists. The concept of Melayu Raya was itself too vague and remote to make any impact on the minds of ordinary people. The immediate preoccupation of the masses and their leaders in those days was how to get rid of colonialism in their respective countries. The result was that the ideal of Melayu Raya was forgotten and soon ceased to exercise even the imagination of the intellectuals who gave birth to the concept. The idea of Malaysia was then mooted by the British. The purpose of Malaysia as conceived by the British in those days was to use it as a counter to anti-colonial nationalism in the Malaysian region and, for this reason, it failed to evoke any response. It failed because it was seen by the nationalists as a Malaysia controlled and dominated by the British. So for the second time the ideal of Malaysia failed to evoke any popular response because objectively the conditions were not ripe for it. Then early last year the Tengku revived the concept of Malaysia and, unlike on the two previous occasions, the idea not only caught on but it also developed with a rapidity which nobody expected. At first the opponents of Malaysia tried to dismiss the whole thing as just a bit of whim on the part of the Tengku. They expected that after the initial call to Malaysia the whole business would be forgotten. But when it looked like gathering momentum the first strong reaction came strangely enough from the Communists and the pro-Communists - the same people who once waxed eloquent over Melayu Raya. The more extreme of the Communist faction lost no time in branding Malaysia as the "Super Merger Trap" and a British colonialist plot - just as merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya was branded as a British plot by the very same people who were secretly making offers to the U.K. Commission to do the P.A.P. in, in return for British guarantee that a new government headed presumably by the Member for Queenstown would be tolerated. It is a measure of the confusion that exists among the Communist and the pro-Communist circles over the question of Malaysia that others of their sympathisers took a more indulgent view of Malaysia. This was because they had to accommodate the sentiments of Malayan Leftist nationalists on the question of Malaysia. For example, the Chairman of the Party Rakyat of Malaya, Inche Ahmad Boestaman, issued a statement that in principle he thought that the Tengku's plan for Malaysia was a "good suggestion and deserved support" provided, of course, this resulted in the Federation of Malaysia becoming economically and politically independent. So, on the one hand, there were the Communists who claimed that Malaysia was a super-merger trap and a British colonialist plot and, on the other, another group which was prepared to support Malaysia in principle because they did not want to alienate Malayan nationalists. This dithering is, I believe, now coming to an end because the line on Malaysia is now being laid for them by the popes and archbishops of Communism who have now come to realise that Malaysia is definitely round the corner, and the time has come for it to be broken up. After a long period of silence Radio Moscow, Radio Peking, the P.K.I. of Indonesia and the Bintang Timur, a pro-Communist Indonesian newspaper, have all branded Malaysia as a bad thing, a pro-colonialist device, and as anti-Indonesia. Mr David Marshall rose -

Is it a point of order?

Point of information please, Mr Speaker.

If the Minister will give way. Mr Ong Pang Boon resumed his seat.

I am much obliged. Would the Minister document that statement of his that Radio Peking and Radio Moscow have come out against the Malaysia concept as being an imperialist machination? Can he tell us where he got that from?

Those who tuned to Radio Peking would have heard this. If the Member for Anson is interested, I shall look up the broadcast and send the script to him. Mr Speaker, Sir, they (Communists and pro-Communists) do not even concede now that Malaysia is a good thing in principle. They have made their final pronouncement on Malaysia and their disciples in this part of the world would have to toe the line. Malaysia must be broken up. 7.08 p.m.

But can it be broken up? That is the problem that must be exercising the minds of even the so-called non-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and their even more feeble counter-parts in Kuching and elsewhere. It is my contention, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is the disconsolate opponents of Malaysia who will be crushed and broken up by what the Minister for Culture has described as the locomotive of history". Malaysia is inevitable not because of the Tengku or the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee or any one else, but because events and forces are thrusting us in that direction. Malaysia is the epilogue to the anti-colonial history in this region. Malaysia is not, as some Members of the Barisan Sosialis contend, a movement inspired by the British to consolidate their hold over these territories. Under Malaysia Britain must relinquish her sovereignty over these territories and transfer it to the new Federation of Malaysia. Of course, it is the fashion among pro-Communists - to brand as phoney any grant of independence which does not result in a Communist take over. For years the Communists refused to accept as genuine the grant of independence to India, Ceylon and other ex-colonial countries where non-Communist regimes came into power. Even in Malaya the less perceptive doctrinaire Communists never fail to repeat that the Federation is still subject to colonial control, unlike Chin Peng who, at the Baling Talks, in response to a direct question by the Tengku, said that he did not regard the Tengku as a colonial stooge but as the properly elected leader of the people of the Federation. When Malaysia comes, the transfer of sovereignty will be genuine in that it will be recognised as such in international law and in the United Nations. Why, it may be asked, are the British prepared to hand over sovereignty over the Borneo States to a new Federation constituted out of 15 States? They are granting sovereignty to the Malaysia Federation for exactly the same reason that led them to grant independence to India, Ceylon, Burma, Ghana, Malaya and other territories for a long time. The British are well aware of the convulsive changes going on in South-East Asia and how vulnerable their position can be as a colonial overlord. The two forces ranged against them are Communism on the one hand and anti-colonial nationalism on the other and they know that they cannot meet the assault of both. Only a few weeks ago the British Prime Minister reminded the British people that Britain was now reduced to the status of a third-class power. In other words, the British realise that time is running out for them in the Borneo territories and, with typical realism, they have decided to come to terms with nationalism rather than with Communism because they understand that nationalism is likely to be the stronger force. They did so in the case of India and Ceylon. Will the Barisan Sosialis therefore say that independence for India and Ceylon was phoney and should have been resisted? The problem therefore is who is to take over in the Borneo territories - the nationalists or the anti-nationalists? It is quite clear what the struggle is now boiling down to. The anti-nationalists, like the Barisan Sosialis, want to break up Malaysia into small units so that they can be subverted one by one. The nationalists, on the other hand, want a unified Malaysia - a strong Malaysia. 7.16 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I wish to say is, are the Barisan. Sosialis rude, or will the motion being debated in this Assembly be left not only to ourselves but also to the people of the territories involved to decide? I say so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because I cannot accept for a moment the accusation that the Tunku is a communalist. Let us leave it to the people to judge whether we or the Barisan Sosialis are communalists. The Barisan Sosialis were prepared to hold mass rallies in Geylang Serai in support of the West Irian struggle. I now invite them to come over to Geylang Serai to hold similar rallies if they are prepared to do so. I feel that the Barisan Sosialis, as a socialist political Party, is not a genuine socialist Party, because I have heard it said in this Assembly that today they represent only the Chinese section of the community. I shall leave the question as to who are communalists to the Assembly to decide. I think they only pay lip service when they say they are attempting to help the Malays. Sir, I was very much surprised to hear such charges made by the Member for Queenstown. He is not satisfied. But he does not know what to do for fear that if he takes the wrong step he might become mad. Is it wrong to seek a closer relationship with our brothers in Borneo? Is it wrong to obtain a loan from Brunei, or must we obtain it from Moscow? It is a wrong attitude on the part of the Barisan Sosialis if they think otherwise. It is fortunate that the Tunku has initiated his Malaysia plan. I may be one of those who will demand that the British should transfer sovereignty to the Malays. These fears will cause anxiety among those who have been accepted as our brothers with citizenship rights and who, we feel, should owe undivided loyalty to the country. I wish to reply to the accusation made by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis concerning the Cobbold Commission which they regard as a rubber stamp. We can use the Malaysia rubber stamp on those people whom we wish to exterminate from our fair land. The purpose of the rubber stamp will be to eliminate people who are pro-Communists or genuine Communists in our country. I wish to clarify another point. We all remember very well that after the Japanese surrender in Malaya and Singapore, there was evidence that the M.P.A.J.A. or the M.C.P. fought to establish Communist rule over Malaya and Singapore. What they fought for al that time was based on communal lines. So I wish to say to the Barisan Sosialis particularly that they cannot allege that the Alliance Government has been adopting the communal line. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should not be blamed if we ourselves start communal feelings among our people, the blame should be put squarely on the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have alleged that the Malaysia plan is anti-Indonesian and that it is a British plan. This opinion cannot find acceptance among the Members of U.M.N.O. Perhaps the Barisan Sosialis have entirely forgotten that the Malay population in Malaya and Singapore originated from Java or Sumatra. We have a sense of loyalty and responsibility to our country. If the Barisan Sosialis wish to teach the Malays in Malaya, then I believe - as the saying goes - blood is thicker than water. So let them take heed of this proverb. They should not try to teach the ducks to swim. If they persist in doing so, it will not be the ducks who will drown but the Barisan Sosialis. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to refute the unfounded allegations made by the Barisan Sosialis concerning the Malaysia plan and the charges directed against the leaders of U.M.N.O. 7.58 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, we believe that all those who are loyal to the State and to the Federation must sincerely support the motion of the day. But it is surprising to us to note that the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has today come forward openly to oppose this motion. He is opposed to the establishment of Malaysia. He has said many things which sound hollow. He says that after the establishment of Malaysia there will not be any freedom, equality and democracy. How can there be an absence of equality and freedom? He has not given any explanation for this matter. He has also Mid that the Malaysia plan is a plan brought forward by the P.A.P. leadership for their own survival. This again is an affront to the people of Singapore, and also to the people of Malaysia. As a matter of fact, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has clearly realised that as soon as the Malaysia plan is fulfilled, their back-seat drivers will fail in their plot to bring about a Communist Malaysia. They know that their plan of a Communist Malaysia will become a dream. As a result of this, they have to come forward to oppose merger between Singapore and the Federation. They object to the White Paper of the Government. They have put forward so many conditions which are unacceptable to the Federation in order to sabotage the merger plan. Today we have brought out this Malaysia plan, and they have also come forward to oppose it openly. Initially we did not know what they were up to. We did not know what they were actually trying to do. But now everything is as clear as crystal. In the Straits Times of today, an article by Alex Josey states that the Communist leader in Indonesia is opposed to the Malaysia plan. The Minister for Culture will be dealing with the details of this article, but to put it in a nutshell, it says that the Barisan Sosialis are advancing similar arguments to those forwarded by the Communists in Indonesia. It is obvious that in South. East Asia, the Communists in Indonesia seem to have become the centre of attraction. We can now see clearly that the Barisan Sosialis do not like merger with the Federation of Malaya at this juncture, neither do they like to see the Malaysia plan materialised. On the contrary they have brought forward arguments to the effect that Singapore, the Federation of Malaya, Brunei, Sarawak, North Borneo, should shelve the Malaysia plan, or else they must have a greater Malaysia to include Indonesia. That is to say, they want a greater Malaysia to include Indonesia and the five territories comprising Borneo, Singapore, the Federation, and so on. From this we can see clearly that they do not hope for a merger at this juncture. They are trying to gain time because they think that the proper time for merger will be when the Indonesian Communists are in control of Indonesia. That will be the best time for merger, according to them. So it is a very clear example. They say they like us. "We are in support of Indonesia recovering West Irian because West Irian is, after all, part and parcel of Indonesia, and we are of the opinion that similarly they should come forward to support our plan to get rid of the remnant forces from the Malaysia plan entirely." But they do not think so. They do not support our getting rid of British colonialism in this area. They say, "You wait for a while. Wait until the Borneo territories have self-determination." They do not like a merger between Singapore and the Federation. They do not want to have an early merger and a union of the peoples of these territories. Instead they want us to be merged with Indonesia. This does not mean that they are in support of the Indonesian Communists. Is it because there is suppression of the Indonesian Communists? They are trying to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore. They are hoping to sell out the interests of the people of all the five territories to the Communists in Indonesia. We members of the P.A.P., including those in the Barisan Sosialis before they left us, already signed an agreement before the elections in which we declared that we are non-Communist, socialist disciples. We also signed a declaration analysing the political development and situation in Malaya. It was clearly stated what we wanted to achieve - an independent, democratic, free and non-Communist Malaya, and not a Communist Malaya. And so it is not our responsibility to work for any influence or any forces. But it is our responsibility to try to do our best to raise the standard of living of the peoples of the two territories. We must develop our country on our own. We do not want to be stooges of any foreign country. It is very clear at this juncture that the Barisan Sosialis is being controlled by the Indonesian Communists. The Member for Queenstown, who is the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, has said that he is in favour of the peoples of the various countries coming together, but he is opposing the merging of our close neighbours. He talks about a common world in the universe. It is but an empty dream. We know that a common world is a very high ideal of a human being. But in every country that has achieved independence, especially in South-East Asia, we see that they are faced with a phenomenon. This phenomenon is very objective as predicted by history - that it is a struggle between nationalism and Communism. Here it is the same. In Burma there were three schools of Communist thinking after independence. Countries in South-East Asia are generally faced with a similar situation. The Member for Queenstown talks about Afro-Asian people and spirit and say that we must keep in line with this spirit of Afro-Asia. I remember that when an Afro-Asian meeting was held, I went there as a reporter and I listened to the Member for Queenstown and other members talking about their support for the Indonesians to take back West Irian. But on the other hand, when they oppose this Malaysia motion, I feel like laughing at them. But if the Member tom Queenstown likes to see it, I can let him read the article written by me in support of the Indonesian struggle for the recovery of West Irian. I wrote that article before the independence of Malaya, that we should support the Indonesian struggle for the recovery of West Irian. At that time a person who dared write such an article would be thought to be a Leftist and would even face the possibility of being arrested. Now I can see the heroes opposite me talk a great deal about how to get others to become soldiers when they themselves stay at home enjoying their comfort. I feel like laughing at them when they say such things. The so-called Afro-Asian spirit, to my mind, means that all those countries that took part in the Bandoeng Conference of Afro-Asian countries were pro-Communists: there were Communists and there were also pro-Western countries. Now if you want to talk about the spirit of Afro-Asian conference you must give the whole picture and all the resolutions passed there as a whole in order to call this an Afro-Asian conference spirit. One resolution was to the effect that all colonialism in Asia and Africa must be eradicated entirely, and these areas included Malaya and Malaysia. Now this is the true spirit of the Afro-Asian conference. I would like to ask the Member for Queenstown what he means when he refers to the Afro-Asian spirit. He says that the Prime Minister deliberately tries to sabotage the good relationship between the Borneo people and the Indonesian people. But it is he himself who is souring up the relationship between these two groups of people. It is not the Prime Minister at all. The representatives of the Barisan Sosialis have come out openly to say that the Malaysia plan is an anti-Indonesian plan. Is this not a deliberate attempt to sour out relationship between these two countries? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that the Barisan Sosialis, in whatever they do, do not mean what they say. They say that they support, in principle, the concept of Malaysia. Everything they say is in principle. But what they are actually doing is detrimental to the Malaysia plan. They say things with only one aim. That is, they are trying deliberately to delay merger. They want deliberately to delay the materialisation of the Malaysia plan. They think that the proper time for merger will be when the Communist force is at its peak. They are waiting for the time when the Indonesian Communists will gain a victory in Indonesia. They think that it would be at this time that Malaysia or merger should come forward so that the Indonesian Communists would be able to include Singapore and the Federation in a greater Malaysia controlled by the Indonesian Communists. Is ths not a sell-out of the interest of the people in Singapore and in the Federation? We have already said that our stand is non-Communist. We do not want to become the stooges of the Communists or any Western country. We have our own objective and our own stand. What we are trying to fight for is a socialist, non-Communist independent, democratic Malaysia. Recently, during the opening ceremony of the P.A.P. headquarters, the Secretary-General of our Party said that our present responsibility is to realise this ideal, so that it will spread to all the people in Malaysia. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have already said just now that the Barisan Sosialis do not represent the people of Singapore or the people in Malaysia. What they represent are those who want to go over to the Indonesian Communists in order to realise their Communist international.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion of the day is very clear and simple. We the P.A.P. are concerned that in a multi-racial society we should establish a harmonious and strong Malaysia. This question is very simple and clear. We want to achieve merger as a step towards the eradication of colonialism in our country. This motion should be supported by all socialists in our country. All those who have the interest of the people at heart, or socialists of this type, should come forward in support of this motion in order to help us realise this plan. But let us look at the Barisan Sosialis Members and their desperate struggle to wreck merger. We can pause to think why they should adopt this attitude. As a matter of fact, it is a mistake for them not to be able to analyse the whole political situation. Political adventurers like the Member for Queenstown will not be able to understand the requirements of the people. How can he reflect the desire of all the peoples in the Malaysian countries? We know that for a very long time the people in Singapore and the Federation had wanted a merger. Similarly, the Malaysian people also desire to have a strong Malaysian country. We who are responsible people and responsible workers in a political Party must be patient and try to understand the requirements of the people. It is our main job to place the interests of the people above party interests. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a very important question. The controversy over the Malaysian concept lies in the fact that the P.A.P. wants to place the interest of the people above all things. But the Barisan Sosialis representatives are trying to put their pro-Communist and Communist interests above the people of these territories. That is why in the debate in this House, the arguments centre on these two different policies. The Malaysian plan is not intended to look after the interests of the P.A.P. What we are interested in is the welfare of the broad masses of the people. What we want to build up is a strong, prosperous and stable nation. We the P.A.P. are not afraid that after the establishment of Malaysia, an end might be put to us. We do not care whether we go to gaol or not. We do not care whether our interests will be protected. But the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis are afraid that if there is a strong Malaysian nation, they night fail to know where to go. And so whenever there is any talk of building up a strong nation, they will ask their bosses within their own Party, as has been exposed by the Prime Minister in his booklet, whether this idea of the people in building up a strong nation will be detrimental to their interest. They have to consult their bosses about this before they could make up their minds. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis of today has a very strange stand. They want to have a self-governing Singapore. Why should we have self-government? We know clearly that Singapore is now still under the British rule. Why should we have a pro-British inclination? They claim to be very strong anti-colonialists. But, as a matter of fact, they are pro-British colonialists. It is really a very humorous situation for them to say such a thing. They claim to be great anti-colonialists heroes of the Barisan Sosialis! They hope that on the stage they can start shouting slogans. But in the streets and at street corners, they come and smear the Malaysia plan and the merger plan. Hitherto the adventurers in the Barisan Sosialis have not levelled any attack on the British colonialists. It is again a very strange situation. How is it that they never attack the colonialists in Singapore? The Minister for Finance is very correct. They have an adventurer in the Member for Queenstown, who is the leader of the Barisan Sosialis. How can you have a blind person leading an elephant? How can you have a blind person riding on a blind person? The so-called great anti-colonialists claim that they are very farsighted. They can see things miles away. They can see the Dutch rule in Indonesia. But right in their own house they cannot see the British colonialists. And they in turn say that they want to have a self-government in Singapore. How ridiculous and preposterous! Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if we pause to think carefully for a while, then we will be able to understand how the Barisan Sosialis have been making such attempts. The main thing is that they are afraid of all the nationalists. That is their weak point. They want to have Communist rule and they therefore treat the nationalists as their opponents. They attack the nationalists instead of attacking the colonialists. In fact, they attack even harder the nationalists. This is their very main failing. They hope that the nationalists will come to a united front with them. But they have a sinister way of coming round to the backs of the nationalists and stab them. They say that the Malaysia plan of Tunku Abdul Rahman is aimed at the exploitation of one country by another. This kind of argument is being advanced by the people who claim to be leaders!

Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh.

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