Hansard, 1962-01-26

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr David Marshall (Anson) - 26th January, 1962.

31 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate.

The Original Question, as amended, was: "That, in pursuance of the 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.". Since which amendments have been moved. In line 4, to leave out "plan" and insert "motion"; In line 6, to leave out "in principle". The Question is, "That the word `plan' proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate will proceed on both amendments and the Original Question, as amended. 2.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya said that he would not accept Singapore into the Federation unless the three North Borneo territories were merged with the Federation. The fact is that if the three North Borneo territories are merged with Malaya and Singapore goes into the Federation with special status, i.e., the so-called partnership, the name to be given for such a kind of association is called Malaysia. It is a name used by the five Governments - three in the North Borneo territories controlled by British colonialists, one in Malaya and one in Singapore, backed by colonial agents. Sir, we must not be confused by the word "Malaysia". The British colonialists, the Tunku and the P.A.P. Government call it Malaysia, for it is the term used in this form of association. But, on the other hand, the P.A.P. call this form of association between Singapore and the Federation as merger. It is, therefore, clearly seen or understood that merger is part of Malaysia. The people must understand that merger is Malaysia and Malaysia is merger. These are two separate names but they mean the same. It is not a real merger or a real Malaysia; It is just a proposal, a plan, or, better still, it is a conspiracy of one country or countries to deprive the rights of the people of the other country and to seek control of the other country. It is also a plot of the colonialists to transfer a portion of their powers to the pro-colonialists who are local people. The colonialists make use of these people to suppress the people. Sir, as the proverb says, "lend the knife to kill the people - Chieh Tao Sha Ren." Sir, it means that I lend you a knife and you kill my enemy. If anyone wants to take revenge, then it is you who are going to be killed and not I. Sir, the British are not as silly as the ass. They know how to give; they know how to take; and not when to give and when to take. The British are not like the Dutch, the Portuguese or the French. They know how to train local people to do the work in the interests of the British colonialists. Sir, just imagine, will the British colonialists give something for nothing? How can we expect the British colonialists to surrender the powers in Singapore and the three North Borneo territories to the local people for nothing? Sir, Singapore is just like an unsinkable aircraft-carrier of the British in the Far East and the mineral wealth in the three North Borneo territories is vital to the British. And yet we see the British supporting Malaysia, whereby the four territories of the British colonies are to be handed to Malaya, not for nothing, but for many things. Sir, with this change of authority from the British to the so-called great nationalists of Malaya, the people of these four territories will still have to pass their lives in darkness. They will still not be able to enjoy the democracy and freedom which they are now fighting to get from the British colonialists. Why do the British colonialists support Malaysia? Because the people in these four territories are fighting against the British and trying to free themselves from British rule. The British are now afraid. They are afraid because the lesser the British colonies the weaker the British become. The best and simplest way to prevent it from happening is to bring up and to train a pro-colonial force of local people and to strengthen and prolong British colonial rule. The British have trained and have brought them up in such a way that the interests of these people are inter-related. Sir, when I say the interests of these people, I mean the interests of the British colonialists and the interests of the pro-colonial agents who are local people. The survival of these people depends on one another. But the British are cleverer than those pro-colonial agents who claim themselves to be nationalists. They make use of these against the mounting anti-colonial force. Sir, it is said that Malaysia was first proposed by the nationalists of Malaya many years ago. I must say the proposal was right because the proposal of a Malaysia Plan was a plan to unite all the people of the territories to fight against the British colonialists and to free themselves from colonial rule. The concept and idea of the proposed Malaysia Plan at that time was to mobilise the forces of anti-colonial and suppressed people to free themselves and to rule themselves. This plan was not supported by the British colonialists then. But now we see the present Malaysia Plan is not only supported by reactionary forces but is also supported by the British colonialists. Sir, even worse, this Malaysia Plan is not going to bring about the reunification of the territories and to unite these people, but to split these people into various categories with different types of citizenship and enjoying different privileges. In addition to this, the destiny of the people of the four territories at this moment is still under the control of the British. How could the cruel-hearted colonialists hand over their rice-bowl to the people of the colonies? And yet we see the colonialists trying to hand over the rice bowl as if to the people, but, in fact, to their pro-colonial agents so that they can share the benefits at the expense of the people whom they have colonised. How can we prove that the British colonialists have recruited a force of pro-colonial agents who work on their behalf? Sir, in the colonial regime, we saw the colonialists accusing the people as subversives, and yet the people fought against the British colonialists. Now, we see the people's elected government of the P.A.P. using the same tactics as those used by the British colonialists.

That is the trouble. We did not do that.

Sir, the British are very clever and cunning. Clever in that they know how to give and how to take. Cunning in that they know how to manipulate their pro-colonial agents.

So you admitted you were cheated.

Sir, how silly the P.A.P. Government argue by saying that we are pro-colonial and they are anti-colonial and nationalists. And yet these so-called nationalists, the British love them and do not want to arrest them. They accuse our Barisan leaders as pro-colonial, but the British once arrested them and put them in gaol.

They invited them to Eden Hall.

Sir, as I was saying yesterday, the Prime Minister was very happy to see the Member for Anson move his amendment and he supported it. He was even happier to see the Member for Hong Lim support the amendment, even though these two speakers strongly oppose and condemn the merger proposals as laid down in the White Paper. Sir, the people think that the White Paper on merger and Malaysia mean the same thing - That is, merger means Malaysia and Malaysia means merger. Why was the Prime Minister so happy even though these two speakers attacked the P.A.P. merger? The answer is simple. It is because these two speakers have fallen into the P.A.P. propaganda trap and are now confusing the people on this issue. Sir, the Workers' Party and the U.P.P. oppose the merger plan and yet they support the Malaysia plan. Sir, we are more aware of the cunning of the P.A.P. and its treacherous tactics. We in the Barisan will not fall into the P.A.P. trap. The P.A.P. are now trying to accuse us, who oppose the sell-out plan, as Communists or Communist stooges -

Which you are.

- and call themselves nationalists or democrats. Sir, what are they doing to justify themselves as being democrats? Sir, we see them using the police force and troops against the workers. We see them using the whole machinery of the Government to suppress those -

Order. Can the Member tell me how those remarks are related to the motion?

Sir, the so-called democrats and nationalists are, in fact, behaving like Fascists. The term "nationalist" is merely a cloak to hide all their Fascist tendencies.

If we were Fascists, you would not be here.

Sir, when debating any motion in this House affecting the stability or the interest of the P.A.P., you are sure to hear the word "Communist". Everytime any motion is debated in this House their attack is usually directed at the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, they call us Communists or Communist stooges. This is nothing but to mislead the people. They say that if Singapore is under the control of the Communists, then there is no freedom, democracy and jobs, and so on. But they have forgotten one important point, and that is, has Singapore ever been controlled by the Communists? The people do not know what a Communist is. An hon. Member: We all know.

The people of Singapore have not tasted, the sweetness or bitterness of the Communists, but the people of Singapore have tasted the bitterness of colonialism and the bitterness of the P.A.P. Government. Sir, in Singapore, we cannot see any Communists.

We are seeing one now.

Sir, they are trying to tell the people that if Singapore is under the control of the Communist, then we have no freedom, but at this moment we have no freedom, no democracy.

Then what are you doing here?

Order.

They use suppressions, smears, threats and intimidation against the people and their political opponents. Why, Sir? These people, especially the Ministers of the P.A.P., do not contact the people. They are isolated in their cool, comfortable air-conditioned rooms and they do not know the people's thinking. Sir, the people do not care about the Communists, socialists or anything, but they do care whether their livelihood is better or worse. Sir, the people will only support those political leaders who really work for the interest of the people and not those who just use a smear campaign against their political opponents. Sir, the Government accuse us of being anti-nationalists because we oppose merger.

You want self-government. That is why.

But I would like to tell them that the people do not care whether we are nationalists, socialists or Communists. The people will fight against those - as I said before - who exploit them, whether they are Communists, socialists, colonialists or anybody else. Sir, I would also like to advise them not to call those people who oppose the P.A.P. as Communists or Communist stooges. Sir, during the election, the P.A.P. classified the political forces of Singapore into five categories - Communists, Socialist Left, Lunatic Left, Right-wing opportunists, and colonialists.

Which one are you?

Now we see the Prime Minister accusing those whom he once called the Lunatic Left as Communists and the real Communists completely disappeared. Sir, in conclusion - this is very important - the Malaysia Plan is a plot and a conspiracy of the British colonialists to suppress the national liberation movement in South-East Asia. 2.54 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Prime Minster on the 25th of this month moved this motion on the Malaysia Plan, he gave this House - and his speech was reported in the newspapers and was broadcast over the radio - such special phrases: "Communists", "Communist open front workers and organisations", "Communist manipulators to establish international Communism and to exercise Communist control". "Communists in the veil of democracy", "the armed struggle directed by foreigners", "the people and the masses mean Communists", "peace-loving and love for democracy are also the special characteristics of the Communists", and "the Barisan Sosialis is being controlled by the P.K.I." Mr Speaker, Sir, all such phrases have only been used this year. They were not used last year. In fact, under the Rendel Constitution, the people of Singapore had also been treated to such phrases which were used on those P.A.P. members who were then with the workers and students. What was the result? The Government of the Member for Cairnhill collapsed. One of his colleagues went to Ipoh to open up a mine. The colonial government also resorted to such tactics against the so-called Communist. Such Communist phrases were also used on the people under colonial rule. What was the result? The colonial rulers had to withdraw and succumb to the anti-colonial forces. Mr Speaker, Sir, when such phrases as Communism are used on the people, it is a sign of the ruling class being in a desperate position. When such Communist phrases are used on the people, it is also the time when the rulers are doing things like selling out Singapore, which cannot be told to the people. These facts can easily be traced in history. Furthermore, we have seen the collapse of the former Government. At the present moment, we can see the P.A.P. is adopting all ways and means to bring about special arrangements. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Culture, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Home Affairs and other Members in the Government, including some Members in the Opposition, have all accused the Barisan Sosialis as being an open front organisation of the Communists or as stooges of the Communists. This allegation was also made by the former Chief Minister of the former Government on the people in the P.A.P. At that time, the Prime Minister spoke in defence of the P.A.P. and of himself. He also defended Mr Lim Ching Siong and his colleagues. He very forcefully attacked the then Government for using such means. This took place only four years ago. The present Prime Minister is using the same tactics which were used by the former Chief Minister against his political opponents. He has also put on the dirty gloves of the former Chief Minister to carry out his attack on his opponents. Mr Speaker, Sir, while debating this Malaysia plan, why should the P.A.P. Government especially shout "Communist"? What is the aim and meaning behind it? Is it a target against the Communists? Are they treating the Communists as their target of attack? I feel that I have a responsibility to let you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and the people in Malaysia and Singapore understand the whole situation. The answer to those questions is that the P.A.P. is shouting communist slogans to suppress the freedom of speech of the people and to confuse the vision of the people in order to achieve its own political ends. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to go further and give a clearer answer. No matter what phrases or what amendments we put forward to this Malaysia motion, such as the deletion of the words "in principle", "plan", and the insertion of the word "motion", no matter what we do about the phraseology of the motion, our position remains the same. Even if Singapore is included in the Malaysia Plan, its position will be the same as that envisaged in the proposals contained in Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. I would like to make some motion of the correspondence contained in the White Paper. The Prime Minister of Singapore sent a letter to the Prime Minister of the Federation on 11th November, 1961. `You will recall that in our discussions on the constitutional framework to effect the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya in the new Federation of Malaysia we agreed upon a memorandum which contains several heads of agreement, including State and Federal responsibilities...'. On the same day the Prime Minister of the Federation replied to our Prime Minister. In the Tunku's reply, he said: `With reference to your letter of 11th November, 1961 ... you wrote as follows: "You will recall that in our discussions on the constitutional framework to effect the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya in the new Federation of Malaysia we agreed upon a memorandum which contains several heads of agreement, including State and Federal responsibilities, whereby Singapore will retain responsibility over Education and Labour and enjoy local autonomy in certain agreed matters as set out therein, without prejudice to the basic principle that there should be a strong Central Government for the Federation of Malaysia as a whole.".' Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see clearly from this memorandum and letter that in the Greater Malaysia Plan, i.e. the Federation of Malaysia, Singapore must go in according to the conditions set out in this letter. Mr Speaker, Sir, under such a Malaysia Plan, what can Singapore citizens get? Singapore citizens will get no more than what is contained in the White Paper. In this White Paper, firstly, the 600,000-odd citizens of Singapore will not automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaysia. They will only become nationals of Malaysia, which is of no practical use. Secondly, Singapore must hand over $100 million to the Central Government of the Federation of Malaysia. Thirdly, autonomy in labour is not safe-guarded because the Tunku has just said that after merger with the Federation, they will properly deal with the industrial disputes in Singapore. So the so-called autonomy in labour is nothing but nought. Fourthly, similar arguments can be applied to the so-called autonomy in education because the Federation Government will be able to deal with educational problems in the way it wishes to do in labour. Fifthly, economically the Central Government of Greater Malaysia has the last say in financial arrangements. Sixthly, Singapore citizens will not be able to enjoy equal rights as those citizens in Greater Malaysia. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether you have a merger between Singapore and the Federation, or whether you have a Greater Malaysia, Singapore citizens will get the same - half a pound or 8 ounces. Mr Speaker, Sir, although the White Paper on merger has been passed by this House, it does not mean that there is no dissatisfaction among the people. Even if the Government were to use propaganda media like the newspapers and the radio to deceive the people, and to try to cajole their brains in order to resort to all sorts of means so that they could control the freedom of speech and expression of the people, they would finally fail. And because they know that the people have decided to oppose all retrogressive constitutional arrangements, a national referendum will give the people an opportunity to make their own decision. But the P.A.P. Government are very clever. They have decided to shelve the National Referendum Bill for the time being. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of the debate on the present motion these past few days, ths House has heard many of these so-called Communist phrases. Such phrases also appear in the speeches reported in the newspapers, as though the speakers are heroes of anti-Communism. It is the aim of the P.A.P. Government to use the term "Communism" to divert the attention of the people and to suppress their expression of discontent against the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is because the P.A.P. Government has made the allegation that only those who are Communists are opposed to Greater Malaysia. Under such circumstances, the Barisan Sosialis have been branded as an open front organisation of the Communists and a stooge of the Communists. Some people have been branded as Communists; even the word "masses" has been described as Communistic. So their argument is that all those who are opposed to the Greater Malaysia Plan are Communists, irrespective of whether they are citizens or not. The people of Sarawak are opposed to the Greater Malaysia Plan, and so, according to their argument, the Government can call them Communists. The people of Brunei are also opposed to the Greater Malaysia Plan. So the Government brand them as Communists. In short, all those who are opposed to the Greater Malaysia Plan are Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this series of propaganda moves, who have the guts to speak their own minds? Civic organisations do not have the courage to express their own views. The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce will not hold another forum on Greater Malaysia. Will the workers, the farmers, the hawkers, the merchants, the teachers, the students, etc, have the guts to express their disagreement? If you should, in the dark, express any disagreement, you will also be called a Communist. So in this way the P.A.P. Government will be able to divert the attention of the people so that they could easily push forward the Malaysia Plan. Under very high-sounding names, they are trying to push through a merger between Singapore and the Federation. Finally, the P.A.P. has an aim to achieve, but it is after the attainment of this aim that the livelihood of the people will be uncertain and in danger. Mr Speaker, Sir, when a quack doctor tells you that you are suffering from a serious disease, that is the time when he tries to sell you quack medicine. When a pickpocket touches your body, that is the time when you will miss your purse or wallet. When the P.A.P. Government shouts that all the streets in Singapore are full of Communists, well that is exactly the time when the P.A.P. is facing political bankruptcy. I hope that the people of Singapore will be able to increase their own vigilance. Otherwise they will not be able to see through the sinister moves and words of the P.A.P. The people should not be intimidated by threats and the propaganda of the P.A.P. Then they will not fall into the trap of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we the Barisan Sosialis were to support this motion on Greater Malaysia, then it would be tantamount to accepting the White Paper on merger. We do not want to see the basic rights of the people of Singapore being reduced. We are not afraid of being branded as Communists by the leadership of the P.A.P. We will not be coerced into accepting this motion. Mr Speaker, we want to be friends with the people. We do not like to be the public enemy of the people. Neither do we want to be traitors to socialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, as long as it is in the interest of the people, we, in the Barisan Sosialis, will struggle and fight to the bitter end. I would like to tell the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Culture that the people in Malaysia have seen through their game in dealing with the Communists. As far as we are concerned, these tactics are not new. Mr Speaker, Sir, the so-called non-Communist socialist P.A.P. is at present becoming anti-Communist. They are progressively and positively anti-Communist. It is definite. There is no point in our arguing over this. When a political Party is facing bankruptcy in its political philosophy, then its political arguments will be illogical. The P.A.P. says, on the one hand, that we, the Barisan Sosialis, are the Dutchmen. On the other hand, they say that the Barisan Sosialis are connected with the P.K.I. So if we carry this argument one step further, then the P.K.I. are the Dutch and the Dutch are also the P.K.I. Mr Speaker, Sir, can you say that such an argument of the P.A.P. is rational? I will say no. Even primary school students will agree with me. And so, Mr Speaker, Sir, our proper and correct conclusion is that the Barisan Sosialis are not Communists. Neither are the Barisan Sosialis Dutch. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Government under the Member for Cairnhill was about to collapse, one of his colleagues, Chew Swee Kee, accused the students of being Communist for using the word "Hsueh-hsih" in Mandarin, which means study. Now the P.A.P. are using the same tactics. They are saying that those who use words like "cho tse" meaning to organise; "ren ming", meaning people; "chin chung" meaning masses; are Communists. They say that all such terms are typical of the Communists. According to this logic, then the Minister for Home Affairs, who is the Organising Secretary of the P.A.P., should also be a Communist because "people" is being used in the name of the P.A.P. Can we say then that the P.A.P. is also Communist? In the P.A.P. there is a Board of People's Work. Can we call this organisation a Communist organisation? The Ministry of Culture has published a pamphlet entitled "Peaceful revolution". Can we also call this a Communist revolution? Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, I went to the library of this Assembly and looked up all the dictionaries and encyclopaedia. But I was unable to find which definitions are monopolised by the Communists. I would like to suggest to the Minister for Culture that he should direct the Minister for Education to stop all the schools from using terms which they call Communistic. Otherwise all the students of the various races will be termed Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, ordinarily any talk on economics should have been made by the Minister for Finance. But when we were debating the motion on Greater Malaysia, the economic aspects of this plan were touched upon at great length by the Minister for Culture. He said that after the realisation of Malaysia the five territories would enjoy economic prosperity and the livelihood of the people would be improved. The Minister for Culture also talked at great length on the activities of the Communists. We can see very clearly from this that the economic theories of the Minister for Culture cannot stand refutation. No wonder the Minister for Finance dare not say anything on that. The Minister for Culture was only trying to draw a picture of a cake on a piece of paper and telling the people of the five territories that they can eat it. He was thus thinking these people would be fooled and trapped by his intriques. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the speech made by the Minister for Culture, he touched on the economic benefits of Malaysia. The most salient point in his speech is that only when the five territories are merged together will there be economic stability. If the five territories were independent of one another, then there would have to be separate currencies. There would have to be a separate economic system which would be competing against one another. Moreover, without a reunification of the five territories, there could not be any industrialisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, the extent of economic stability, judging from the present economic situation of the five territories, does not depend on the size of the territories but on the internal resources of each territory. Economic stability depends on prices and also on international supply and demand. If the prices of tin and rubber were to decrease day after day, does it mean that after the merger of the five territories the economic situation would be better? Mr Speaker, Sir, after the five territories have merged together to form one nation, does it mean that the five territories should have a unified currency system before we can have economic stability and prosperity? I do not agree with this view. The most important thing, when speaking on these economic problems, is this. The five territories were once controlled by the British colonialists. When they become independent, they could also become members of the British Commonwealth, and in the British Commonwealth there is one economic system. Different systems of currency are not a decisive factor in the determination of the economic stability of the five territories. After these five territories are independent, they can form a common market and resolve all these economic problems. We can learn a lesson from the present European Common Market. We can find examples in their system. For instance, the franc is used by the French; the mark is used by West Germany, and the peso is used by Italy. All these different forms of currency are used by the Common Market countries. When in future the United Kingdom also joins the Common Market, the British pound will also be One of the currencies used. The currencies used in these Common Market countries are all different. But in spite of that, they can form a common market. This goes to show that currency is not a decisive factor in economic stability. After all, the five Common Market countries have their own different currencies. According to the talks and disclosures by the Federation Government on the White Paper on merger, we know that even after the realisation of Malaysia there would still be the necessity to have a common market. This common market would form an economic link among the five territories. Therefore, from all this, you can see that the arrangements as proposed in the Malaysia Plan cannot benefit the people of the five territories. The Malaysia plan does not provide for either constitutional advancement or economic improvement. Therefore, based on these facts, I oppose this motion on Malaysia. 3.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we discuss the motion moved by the Prime Minister, namely, the motion on Malaysia. When he was moving this motion, I had the impression that those who sing the praises of Malaysia are the P.A.P. leadership. Their voices, among those who shout Malaysia, are raised very high. But the tune is wrong. After listening to their tune we feel uncomfortable. Mr Speaker, Sir, why is the P.A.P. leadership so anxious to sell this Malaysia Plan to the people? Why are the P.A.P. leaders so anxious to want the people to agree to their plan? The reason is very simple and obvious to all. That is to say, among those who are in power in the five territories, the most unstable and shaky one is the P.A.P. Government. Therefore, the P.A.P. leadership dreams that through the Malaysia Plan, their merger proposals will be realised. They are depending upon the colonial and reactionary forces to suppress the Left-wing movement so as to ensure that they will stay in power. This is why the P.A.P. leadership is so eager to launch the Malaysia Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people in Singapore think that this Malaysia Plan, as moved by the Prime Minister, is a P.A.P. double-cross merger. My colleague has already spoken on this aspect. The Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, has frankly told us this, that merger between Singapore and the Federation is part of the Malaysia Plan. Since the Malaysia Plan is a P.A.P. type of merger proposal, therefore, if we support this plan, it means that we agree to the P.A.P. type of sell-out merger proposals. That is to say, we will be agreeing to the betrayal of the interests and the loss of equal citizenship and proportionate representation of the people of Singapore in the Federal Parliament. [Interruption]

Order. The Prime Minister appears to be making a speech from his seat. If it is to be an intervention, I am sure the young Lady will probably give way.

Sir, on a point of explanation. It was not an intervention, Sir,I was helping her.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although we admit we are but students of politics, nevertheless, we have no need of their assistance. We will learn from the people, but we will not learn from the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, what will be the position of the people of Singapore in the Malaysia Plan as proposed by our Prime Minister? Will Singapore citizens be able to enjoy equal treatment in the Federation of Malaysia? This is a very important question, and we will give a positive answer. The answer is "no". This is because Tunku Abdul Rahman has already said that Singapore will only go in as a partner in the merger, that is to say. Singapore cannot go in as an equal brother in the Malaysia Plan. It is only as a partner who follows other people. Mr Speaker, Sir, as representatives of the people, what we are concerned about are their hopes, aspirations and interests. We will support anything which is in the interests of the people. But we will firmly oppose anything which is contrary to their interests. Whether the colonialists like it or not, whether the Federation Government is satisfied or not, and whether the P.A.P. leadership cries or laughs all this does not concern us. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to express my regret that when the P.A.P. leadership spoke on this motion, they seemed to forget that they were elected by the people. They did not speak on behalf of the people. They seemed to speak for the reactionary Right, the reactionary Government of the Federation of Malaya. They seemed to represent the British Colonial Office or S.E.A.T.O. countries and the anti-Communist experts, because the content of their speeches had only one central point, i.e., anti-Communism. Mr Speaker, Sir, the speeches made by the Government Ministers have turned this motion into an anti-Communist motion. The people of Singapore will feel strange about this. Why should one who insists on a non-Communist line as the P.A.P. Government has, now shout the anti-Communist slogan? Even people like Chew Swee Kee and the Member for Cairnhill, who are the most ardent anti-Communists, will admit that they are inferior to the P.A.P. in the matter of anti-Communism. The P.A.P. leadership's anti-Communist drama and the song they sing about anti-Communism are appreciated by the S.E.A.T.O. countries and the colonialist forces. These countries will admire their behaviour and will treat them as their cherished child. But in the eyes of the people of Singapore, the P.A.P., which neglects the interests of the people, should be treated as clowns, owls, or crows. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leaders cannot advance arguments to refute the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the question of Malaysia or merger. Nor can they find reason and arguments to cover up their so-called merger proposals and the Malaysia Plan which are not beneficial to the people. They cannot cover up all this. Therefore, in their desperation and isolation, they try to distract the attention of the people by using the word "Communist" to threaten them. We can see all this very clearly. When the Prime Minister moved his motion on Malaysia, we, who are in the Assembly, have seen a booklet written by the Prime Minister "The Battle for Merger." The Prime Minister rose -

Point of order?

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

No.

The Member will not give way.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the interesting part of it is that when this House was debating this question, the Government Benches and their leaders had no theoretical basis. They were always using the article written by Mr Alex Josey. They seemed to treat this as a very valuable thing to attack the Barisan Sosialis with. I feel sorry for them because they themselves cannot advance any arguments to support their Malaysia Plan but have to turn to the pro-colonial English newspaper to seek inspiration for their theoretical basis. All this exposes their bankruptcy in the matter of theory. It also exposes their pro-colonialist faces. Mr Speaker, Sir, our stand on Malaysia is based on the people's interests. Does the party in power want to save themselves by handing out the hat of Communism to put on the heads of the people, so as to threaten and silence them? Mr Speaker, Sir, I also want to refer to what have been uttered by the Minister for Home Affairs and other Ministers not only in this Assembly, but outside as well. [Interruption]

Order. I suggest to the Ministers on the Front Bench to pause awhile. Let the Speaker have an opportunity of hearing what is being said. Then, if they have to pass a comment in jest, I might allow them to do that. But give the Speaker a chance.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, they want to silence the people in order to carry out their plan which is detrimental to the interest of the people. One who indulges in arguments cannot always profess to speak the truth. Intimidation cannot always achieve its purpose. Our stand and our actions have always been based on the interest and welfare of the people and we act accordingly. Since the motion on Malaysia means the P.A.P. type of merger, we will therefore not fall into the trap of the Party in power. Therefore I oppose this motion. Here let me touch on a few points which have been raised by the Prime Minister who unfortunately is not here now. These points have been reported in the local Sin Chew lit Poh of 25th January, 1962, at page 1. The Prime Minister said that the Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis used to say that they supported the concept of Malaysia. It is true that we of the Barisan Sosialis have said that we support the principle of merger and Malaysia, but it does not mean that we support the P.A.P. type of merger and Malaysia. Therefore, I want the Prime Minister to understand this point clearly. He must not try to be too clever and imagine that when people support the principle of merger and Malaysia, they are supporting the P.A.P. type of merger and Malaysia. I hope he will not distort facts and the people's ideas. There is another point. The Prime Minister said that on any question - whether it is a question of West Irian or Malaysia - the P.A.P. has no difficulty as to its firm stand. But it could be very difficult for the Barisan Sosialis as they do not mean what they say. I think the anti-colonial stand of the P.A.P. is not true, because, if it were so, then they must let the people know the details of the plan and they should not keep everything in the dark. If their stand is in line with the stand of the people, they need not have to carry out surreptitiously their own type of merger and Malaysia, to smear or threaten people and to adopt other mean tactics. They need not have to do such things if their stand is on the side of the people. On the other hand, the stand of the Barisan Sosialis can stand any test inside or outside this House at mass rallies attended by thousands of people. Our stand is as firm as a mountain. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the people of Singapore can remember that last year the P.A.P. found themselves in a very embarrassing position when the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya was debated in this House. During the debate, they could only resort to laughter and mimicry in order to divert attention and to cover up their own failings. They managed to go through the course of debate on merger by adopting such antics. There is another point. Recently when we debated the West Irian issue, the P.A.P. leadership were not sure of their stand on that motion. They also found themselves in a very embarrassing position when they spoke on it. I would not like to dwell any longer on this point. From all these facts, we can see who is on the side of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel most dissatisfied with the mean and fantastic way the P.A.P. referred to the three women who signed up as volunteers to fight for the liberation of West Irian. They said that these three women were Barisan Sosialis members and they were instigated to volunteer. But we have now found out that they are not members of the Barisan Sosialis. I think the three women have been greatly insulted by the P.A.P. I do not think I should speak in defence of these three women as I do not know them personally. In short, I would like to say that their action in signing up as volunteers is not something shameful. I think the P.A.P. leadership cannot deny this. Another point with which I am dissatisfied is that -

Order. I think the hon. Lady has made her point. She cannot go any further than that because we are on Malaysia now. She has already made her point. Let us not debate it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only want to point out that it is not true for the P.A.P. to say that the three women who volunteered were instigated by someone else. In making such an accusation, the P.A.P. want to discourage the people from volunteering.

Order. If the hon. Lady is very interested in these three ladies, I think she can file notice of a motion. Then we can have a debate on it. I am trying to indicate to the Member that she has made her point. She has said that these are tactics which she considers are not fair and it must end there. But she cannot now debate why these three women volunteered, as to how they came to volunteer and so on. The point has been made.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept your ruling. I will not touch on that subject any more. The Prime Minister said that 1962 will be a memorable year for South-East Asia because of the West Irian issue and Malaysia. He said he wanted to wait to see what the Barisan Sosialis wanted to say on that. I think he wanted us to express our stand on that. I would like to tell the Prime Minister something, but unfortunately he is not here now. Our stand is very simple. We can frankly and openly say that we the Barisan Sosialis are entirely opposed to the dirty motion moved by the Prime Minister.

Order. The translation that came through was that the motion was "dirty". If that is so, then that is an unparliamentary word to use about a motion which is being moved quite lawfully in this Assembly. It is, of course, a reflection on the Prime Minister. That word must be withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): The translation is correct. I did say so. I beg leave to withdraw the remark.

Order. If the hon. Lady, by that comment, meant that she knew that the word "dirty" was unparliamentary and should not have been used then she should go further and apologise, if not to the Prime Minister, at least to the House and to the Speaker for using an unparliamentary word deliberately.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not know that that word could not be used. That was why later on I told you that I would like to withdraw such a remark. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to tell the Prime Minister is that not only in this House, but outside I will expose him to the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the motion moved by the Prime Minister. 4.02 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malaysia motion today has been debated for several days in this House. In the course of the debate, apart from the Barisan Sosialis Members, the Members from other Parties have on principle supported this motion. They have clearly dealt with this motion, and I do not like to repeat them. But there is one point which I would like to raise and which has not yet been touched upon by other speakers. In the first place, we all know that for the formation of a country and a merger between two countries, you must have as pre-requisites common conditions geographically, politically and economically, without which there would not be any merger at all. Today Malaysia, which is to comprise five territories, satisfy these common conditions. My colleagues have already given explanations in this respect. Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever you do there are always two sides to it. It may be very good but some people may say it is bad. A thing which is extremely bad may also be described by others as good. Now, in the course of debating this motion, we can see clearly the point of my logic. For example, brightness has always been extolled but some people are afraid of brightness and light. Darkness is always described as a bad thing and cursed by many, but some people, who prefer to lead a nocturnal life, seem to like darkness. Mr Speaker, Sir, after this motion was moved, I had a feeling that the Barisan Sosialis might bring up very good theories to argue their way out. But unfortunately it is disappointing that they have nothing new to offer. All they have said is just playing the same old tune. They are frying the cold rice which is burning from brown to black. So the rice in this condition will not whet the appetite of the other Members in this House. Members of the Barisan Sosialis always make the accusation that we are against the people and that we are always making use of the people's name to do bad things. I would like to say that we have a mandate from the people and that whatever we do is in accordance with the mandate given by them. The people have given us that mandate in the hope that we will be able to bring them a better life and greater prosperity. In giving us their mandate in the course of elections they did expect us to forget our promises. The people do not want us to say something and do another thing. This is the last thing that they want us to do. But this is exactly what the Barisan Sosialis are doing at present. They say something which they do not mean. After this long debate is concluded and historically recorded, it will be seen who is right and who is wrong. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that as far as human beings are concerned, the mouth is always used for one's own good, the eyes are used for one's own observation and to see other people's shortcomings. But fortunately among human beings there are few people who are like this. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe, and I think the majority of the Members in this House will also agree with me, that in the past few days it has been pointed out clearly that any right-thinking person who is loyal to his country will undoubtedly support the concept of Malaysia. I would like to stress here why we should support this concept of Malaysia. From newspaper reports we can see clearly that the development of the recent world is such that we must group together. In the United Nations Organisation there are three blocs. There is first the Western-bloc which represents the political influence of colonialism. The second bloc comprises countries from the Middle East, which are representative of the neutral bloc; this also includes countries in Afro-Asia. In the third bloc, you have the Communist political force. From the passage of history we can see that any political influence or any political ideologies cannot get away from these three classifications. It is from these classifications of political forces that we can see that the countries in Eastern Europe are trying to conquer and destroy countries in Western Europe, and vice versa. Fortunately, a third World War is unlikely to take place for the time being at least because there is the neutral bloc. Here I would like to pay my tribute to the leaders of the neutral countries, especially to Nehru, in the cold war. The neutral bloc acts as a balancing agent, and if it should either lean to the West or to the East, then there is every likelihood of a Third World War. When the West and the East are putting forward great efforts in the advancement of nuclear weapons, we will know all the better that when these two blocs know that when either of them are in a position to destroy the other, they will have to regard the other bloc as an enemy. So for these reasons the great powers of the East and the West are trying to race against each other in, producing nuclear weapons. The effort in nuclear armament is -

Order. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will please come back to the motion. He is talking about nuclear wars. I do not see how Malaysia comes in at the moment. He has spent ten minutes in his exordium talking about something which seems to me - I may be wrong - completely far away from Malaysia.

(In Mandarin): I have to illustrate to show my points on Malaysia and also to show the reasons why we support the Malaysia Plan. Just now I mentioned the three blocs, in the United Nations. Now I would like to touch on Malaysia. This is also the stand of neutral countries. It is for the well-being of our future nation and in the interest of our people. This is something which will not let us fall into any political cold war among the blocs. Malaysia will also contribute to the strength of neutral countries and thus benefit all. Malaysia is going to improve our lot in this direction. We are trying our best to fight for a sound foundation for Malaysia. That is to say, we must fight to lay a good foundation for Malaysia in order that our future generation may have something good. Our efforts and work are necessary at this stage in order to achieve Malaysia. It is because of this reason that I fully support the motion moved by our colleague, the Prime Minister. 4.16 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion moved by the Prime Minister was moved last year. We can now see clearly why this motion has been delayed from time to time. They would be naive if they think and believe that the Barisan Sosialis would undoubtedly support this motion, and that they would he able to talk a great deal on the eve of the meeting of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee in Singapore. 4.17 p.m.

They are hoping before this meeting of the Solidarity Consultative Committee meeting in Singapore they would be able to talk a great deal of this anti-people's plan. Their object is to make the representatives of the other three territories believe that all the political Parties in Singapore are supporting the Greater Malaysia Plan in principle, especially the Barisan Sosialis. Unfortunately, the P.A.P. leaders, who have all along been thinking that they are, the cleverest people in the world and have been treating others as fools, have, at this juncture, again taken a wrong move on the chess-board. They have lost the battle again. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we can tell them today that socialist movements in the five territories are heading in the direction of solidarity. The true socialist Parties are today gathering in the capital of the Federation of Malaya to discuss the task facing them at the present juncture. They will especially attack relentlessly the pseudo socialists at this meeting. Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, the P.A.P. Government has moved the present motion in this House. Outside this House the P.A.P. is holding a Malaysia Week. All this is being done in order to deceive the representatives of the three Borneo territories into believing that the people of Singapore are very enthusiastic about the Malaysia Plan. As a matter of fact, in order to assess the true stand and attitude of the people in Singapore towards the Malaysia Plan, it is not enough just to put up posters and banners all over the city. The P.A.P. Government is, at this juncture, trying to put up a show. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe that when you come to this office, you must have seen all the decorations in red on the way. So many colourful posters have been put up in conjunction with the motion before this House. This is the show bring put up by the P.A.P. on the eve of the meeting .of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee. They have also the so-called Malaysia Week. This again is only a show. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is an example of how the P.A.P. is making use of public funds for its own political propaganda. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we can find on these posters words which do not really express the views of the people in Singapore. There appear on these posters such words as "True independence through Malaysia"; "Malaysia, peace and prosperity for 10 million people". Lastly, you can find on one poster the following words, "Long live Malaysia." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has not consulted the people of Singapore on this Malaysia Plan. Can it really mean that the people of Singapore are in support of it? This is a matter which concerns the constitutional future of Singapore. The P.A.P. has not been given the final mandate by the people. Under such circumstances, how can the Ministry of Culture make use of public funds to put up all sorts of posters containing slogans such as "Independence through Malaysia"? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, has in his speech a few days ago exposed this Malaysia Plan for what it is. The Chairman of our Party has also expressed our stand and attitude on Malaysia. I do not, therefore, wish to waste the time of this House by repeating what has already been said. However. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have one thing to tell you at this moment. That is, the leaders of the P.A.P., especially the Big Three of the P.A.P., are just like ants in the hot pan. They are very anxious. They are trying their utmost best to resort to all the tactics of salesmanship to sell a false thing - a thing which is not welcomed by the people. Ths thing is the Malaysia Plan. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will remember that last Friday, the Minister for Culture made an announcement in the local newspapers about the plan to hold a National Language Week. In this news item, it was stated by the Ministry of Culture that during the National Language Week the Government will hold exhibitions, forums, etc. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is indeed very strange that in just one night, in the course of just 24 hours, their so-called National Language Week should have disappeared! On Saturday, the next morning, there appeared in the local newspapers another announcement of the Ministry of Culture which changed the National Language Week into a Malaysia Week. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from this behaviour of the Ministry of Culture, we can see very clearly that the Minister for Culture is not sincere when he talks about the promotion of the cultures of the various races and the promotion of the national language. Just in the course of one night the National Language Week was turned into Malaysia Week. From this again we can see that Malaysia Week has some selfish meaning in it. Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, in the world of today, there has not been any government which has done such an irresponsible thing. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the wavering behaviour of the P.A.P. Government, we can see clearly that the P.A.P. leaders are not concerned with the cultures of the various races. Neither are they concerned with the interest of the various races. What they are concerned with is how they can, through all sorts of tactics and magic, preserve their own power. They are very interested in making arrangements for a phoney merger. They work very hard to strike the gong.

It has been stated in this Assembly that the expression cannot be used. The hon. Member should withdraw it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am just mentioning it in passing and that is all.

The hon. Member should withdraw that expression.

(In Mandarin): I now withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The P.A.P. are trying their best to strike the gong to sell their quack medicine, which is the Malaysia Plan and which is also intended to prolong their political life. If they are successful in carrying through this Plan, then the Minister for Culture will be able to have opportunities to speak in this House. He will be able to say how anti-Communistic he has been and how he has defended the colonialists, especially in regard to their interests. After this plan, the Minister for Finance will again be able to go to Thailand to play golf. Then he will also be able to talk about the 4th round, the 8th round and so on. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to the principles of democracy, any matter that concerns the nation must be put to the people for their views. Therefore, on this question of Malaysia, the P.A.P. leaders should not act in an arbitrary manner. The P.A.P.'s only duty is to consult the people, especially those in the five territories, and get their views. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Culture have been to Kuching recently. They themselves should know what is the reaction of the peoples in Brunei and Sarawak to the Greater Malaysia Plan. Do they hold similar views to those of the P.A.P.? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. want to talk about democracy and pay heed to the views of the people, then their leaders must also consider the views of the Party Rakyat in Brunei, because this Party represents one-third of the population there. It is a Party which is sufficient to represent the views of the Brunei people- at least, the majority of them. In the meantime, the P.A.P. must also pay attention to the Sarawak United People's Party n regard to its stand on Malaysia, because the S.U.P.P. is one of the great Parties in Sarawak. What about the attitude and reaction of the people in North Borneo? Well, leaders of the P.A.P. may well go to the Special Branch to find the answer. This is interesting information. A few days ago, the Minister for Home Affairs said that the Chairman of Party Rakyat in the Federation was also supporting the Malaysia Plan. This is again incorrect. The Minister for Home Affairs was quoting out of context. The Minister for Home Affairs should ask officials in the Special Branch to give him "The Torch", party organ of the Socialist Front in the Federation, in which is contained an article written by Mr Boestamam. Then, after reading this article he will know that he has made a mistake. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the speeches given by the P.A.P. Ministers, we can see that apart from talking about anti-Communists, they have no new material for their propaganda. What a pathetic sight! Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as a socialist worker, what I am con cerned with is the livelihood of the broad masses. The objectives of the Barisan Sosialis are to protect the democratic rights of the people. If there is any motion which is in the interests of the people, then I shall support it wholeheartedly. But, on the other hand, if there is anything which is against the will of the people and detrimental to the democratic rights of the people, then I shall oppose it. We all know that this motion on the Greater Malaysia Plan is not only detrimental to the interests of the people of Singapore but also detrimental to the strength of the anti-colonial forces in the three territories. So I am opposing it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if my memory serves me right, the Minister for Culture said yesterday that we in the Barisan Sosialis were opposed to ths motion because we were Communist followers. But I would like to ask: if the Communists eat bread and we should also eat bread, can you say that we are also Communists? Now, as regards sleep; if we should sleep as the Communists do, are we also Communists? This kind of argument is simply incredible. The main task ahead of us is the people's interest. There is no point in talking about Communists, anti-Communists and non-Communists. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before the Greater Malaysia concept is realised, we should understand the life and conditions of the peoples in these five territories. Take, for example, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. In Singapore we have our own citizenship. Singapore citizens can elect their own representatives. The same can be said of the Federation of Malaya. Regarding the policies governing immigration, the people of Singapore cannot go freely to North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei to get jobs because of immigration restrictions. Before they can go to any of the territories they have to be screened by the Government at that place, and there are always restrictions imposed on them. As regards economy in construction, let us take Singapore again. At present, the revenues of Singapore are spent on construction work in Singapore. We do not have to pay any expenses to the Federation Government. As regards security, we have our own people to deal with this because it is our own matter. What is the condition of education in these five territories? Well, each territory has its own education policy. Singapore has its own, so have Sarawak, Brunei and the Federation of Malaya respectively. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us now look at what is going to happen after the Greater Malaysia concept is realised. Will there be any change? I will say that, on the whole, there will not be any change. Take citizenship again as an example. The people of Singapore will remain Singapore citizens. Federation citizens will also remain as such. The only difference is that some representatives will be sent to the Central Parliament, but not on a proportionate basis. So the administrative powers of Singapore will be held by the big shareholders. As regards the immigration policy, can the people of Singapore go freely to the three territories in Borneo to look for jobs? Well, the conditions after Malaysia will remain as they are now. That is to say, after Malaysia the unemployment problem will not be solved. On the contrary, the people of Singapore, who have to pay high taxes, may lose something. So what is the use of having a Malaysia Plan? Talking about economic expansion. Let us take Singapore again. After Malaysia, the revenues of Singapore will not be spent in Singapore alone, because by then Singapore may have to shoulder some responsibilities in the expenditure on defence and foreign affairs. So in exchange for this, what do we get? We will not get anything but a string round our necks which is being pulled by others. On education, what will be the position at that time? Well, everything will be the same. That is to say, the big shareholders want to buy over the small shareholders and then enjoy the benefits previously enjoyed by the small shareholders. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to socialism, we of the Barisan Sosialis know that when a country is not united with another country or merged with other countries, each of these countries has its own policies in regard to citizenship, economics and so on. But as soon as these countries get together, that is to say, when this Malaysia Plan is realised, then, in principle, all these countries will be taken as one unit and there should be only one citizenship. The seats in the Central Parliament should not be decided in favour of the larger territories at the expense of the smaller territories. They should be decided in proportion to the population of each territory. There should not be any restriction on immigration. All the people in the various territories, especially the people of Singapore who are unable to get jobs locally, should be allowed to go freely to Brunei or Sarawak to seek employment or to do whatever business they like. There should be a unified educational system in these five territories for the various races so that they will live together in harmony. Without the conditions I have mentioned, I think this so-called Greater Malaysia Plan will be a false plan because it will mean that a big territory will engulf a smaller territory by not giving due consideration to the democratic freedom and the interest of the people in the territory concerned. The people of any of the five territories will oppose such a plan. So the present Malaysia Plan is not well received by the people. If the Party in power have the guts, they can go to the people for a decision. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have said, I strongly oppose this motion because its aim is not to give better rights to the people of the five territories. 4.50 p.m.

Our Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, in his speech at the beginning of this debate on Malaysia, said that this Malaysia scheme is a scheme sponsored by the British. He has already pointed out that this British Plan is essentially aimed at preserving British economic and military domination in Singapore and the Borneo territories. In, the short-term view, the British hope, by this campaign on Malaysia, to divert public attention from the colonial power thereby confusing and stopping the anti-colonial movement in these territories. In the long-term view, this British-sponsored scheme is obviously to allow the British to continue their economic domination through indirect rule. Since the Federation Government will be ruling over this entire region if the Malaysia scheme is pushed through -

On a point of clarification.

If the Member will give way.

No. It has been made very clear to the British that they will not harm British economic interest in this region. The most disgusting thing about this whole matter -

Is the policy of the Barisan.

- is that the P.A.P., which is supposed to be a socialist Party -

Not a Communist Party?

- is secretly plotting with colonial and reactionary forces in this region to foist this scheme on to the people. As the P.A.P. leaders themselves know, this British-sponsored Malaysia scheme is rejected by all genuine socialist Parties in this region. We in the Barisan Sosialis were privileged -

To support the P.K.I.

- to meet the delegates from the Party Ra'ayat of Brunei and the S.U.P.P. of Sarawak when they arrived here a few days ago on their way to attend the Socialist Conference in Kuala Lumpur. It is extremely significant to note that these two Parties, which are the major Parties in their respective States and which command the mass support of the people in the Borneo territories, -

You have not been there.

- are strongly opposed to this British-sponsored Malaysia scheme. Sir, it is perhaps important for this Assembly to be informed that the Party Ra'ayat of Brunei today is virtually the effective Government of Brunei. An hon. Member: Ha, ha!

Practically every adult member of the population of Brunei is today a member of Party Ra'ayat of Brunei. It is a well-known fact [Interruption] that the Government of Brunei today dare not take any major policy decision without first getting the consent of the leaders of Party Ra'ayat. The voice of the Party Ra'ayat of Brunei today is the real voice of the people of Brunei. The Party Ra'ayat of Brunei has come out in strong opposition to this British sponsored scheme in no uncertain terms. Can the P.A.P. Government say that their Malaysia scheme has the support of the people of Brunei?

Yes.

Does our Prime Minister dare go to Brunei and tell the people there to support this Malaysia scheme? [Interruption]

Order.

I need not have to tell him what would happen to him should he try to do such a rash thing. Let me quote from the Straits Times of today what the Vice-President of the Party Ra'ayat, Inche A. A. Hapidz Laksamana, has said on this Malaysia scheme. Inche Laksamana incidentally is also the leader of the Brunei United Labour Front or Barisan Buroh Bersatu - a trade union movement to which practically every worker in Brunei belongs. The strength of this trade union movement was demostrated some time ago when the whole oil-fields in Brunei had to stop work when the union called out all its members to attend a general meeting. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to today's Straits Times, page 20, column 3: `The vice-president of the Brunei Party Ra'ayat, Inche A. A. Hapidz Laksamana, has said that pro-Malaysia elements in Borneo were selling their birthright for a mess of pottage. He said before leaving that the people who supported Tengku Abdul Rahman's Malaysia plan were void of honesty or principle.' It goes on to read: `He accused pro-Malaysia exponents of wanting only personal aggrandisement at the expense of the Borneo people. He said that "these unprincipled groups" were aiming to become chief ministers or to obtain other high offices with the advent of Malaysia. Referring to pro-Malaysia supporters in Brunei, Inche Laksamana said: "These pen-pie are trying to sell the Crown of Brunei.". The Party Ra'ayat leader said that there seemed to be something mysterious in the air of Kuala Lumpur. Borneo leaders going there as avowed opponents of the Malaysia scheme usually came back to eat their words - avid supporters of the Malaysia plan. He urged Borneans not to place their trust in these people. He warned pro-Malaysia politicians in Brunei that they were going against the will of the people and that their action was dangerous.'. Sir, what we find today is that the P.A.P. leaders are deliberately ignoring the real representatives of the people of the Borneo territories and are playing up the opinion of those people from these territories who do not have any mass following. We in Singapore have seen these same tactics being used before by the colonial power. The people of Singapore still remember how the Rendel Constitution was drawn up by the colonial power without consulting the people. We still remember how the colonial power consulted only those so-called leaders at that time. The C. C. Tans and the Laycocks were hailed as "responsible" leaders of our people. We have also seen what happened to these so-called responsible leaders once they had to face the judgment of the people. We saw how they were brushed aside by the people once they were given the right to express their opinion.

That is what is going to happen to you!

Let us remind the P.A.P. leaders what they themselves have said about these propped-up, so-called responsible leaders of Singapore who conspired with the British to foist upon the people of Singapore a Constitution which they did not want. What moral right have the P.A.P. leaders now to use the same colonial tactics to bulldoze through a constitutional change without the consent of the people of the Borneo territories?

Order. Perhaps it is convenient to suspend now 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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying before the tea break, what moral right have the P.A.P. leaders to use the same colonial tactics to bulldoze through a constitutional change without the consent of the people and their leaders of the Borneo territories?

Order. Did I hear the hon. Member accuse the P.A.P. of bulldozing through the Malaysia plan? We have dealt with the merger plan, but I cannot see any suggestion that the P.A.P. are bulldozing through a Malaysia plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that the P.A.P. leaders arc using the same colonial tactics to bulldoze through a constitutional change without the consent of the people and their leaders of the Borneo territories. Surely the P.A.P. leaders must know that these so-called leaders of the Borneo territories, whose opinions alone the P.A.P. seem to care, will suffer the same fate as the so-called responsible leaders of Singapore who conspired with the British to draw up the Rendel Constitution. Sir, as my Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, has said, no commission, however well intended, could be a proper substitute for the secret ballot. What is even worse, this commission is obviously not going to be well intended. As has been pointed out, the Tunku himself has already said that this commission must "make the right recommendations" in order to facilitate the imposition of this Malaysia scheme. Does the P.A.P. think that the people of Singapore will be happy if their constitutional future will be decided by just a Commission of Inquiry, which is composed only of outsiders, and responsible only to outsiders? And what is worse the commission is obviously going to be biased even before it starts its inquiry. Does the P.A.P. think that our people like this? Of course not. Then why are they forcing on the people of the Borneo territories something which they do not want? Why must the P.A.P. do to others what they do not like others to do to them?

Order. There seems to be some confusion here. I do not know whether the hon. Member is seriously alleging that it is the P.A.P. who have appointed this commission, and that it is the P.A.P. who are foisting something on the Borneo territories. If the hon. Member asks why the P.A.P. supports such an action, then I can understand it. But when he says that the P.A.P. are foisting this thing on the Borneo territories, then I cannot understand him. I must understand the debate to see whether it is in order.

Surely, Sir, I said that this commission was appointed, or formed, or suggested by the Prime Minister of the Federation, and not the P.A.P. I said: why must the P.A.P. do to others what they do not like others to do to them? Or have these bankrupt politicians got one set of moral values for themselves and another set of values for others? Can they call themselves genuine socialists? The people will only laugh at them. Today, Sir, the P.A.P. hail themselves no more as socialists, for they know that they have become isolated from the socialist movement in this region. We see the Prime Minister himself not daring to go to the Socialist Conference in Kuala Lumpur but sending only his second-rank followers.

On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Low Por Tuck remained standing.

Order. I do not think it is fair for the Member for Havelock to make a specific statement of that nature - that the Prime Minister did not dare to go to Kuala Lumpur - and then refuse to allow a clarification. This appears to me to be completely discourteous to the Assembly itself. It may be a wild statement, or it may be true - I do not know and I am not judging - but if specific statements of that nature are made, and a Member rises on a point of clarification, courtesy demands that the clarification should be made. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just a clarification. Far from the Prime Minister not daring to go to this conference, the invitation was extended to the Party. We have sent four delegates. May I inform the House that I shall be going there sometime during the week? Therefore, it is not fair to say that the Prime Minister could not go because of the Assembly sittings here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, I have not finished this point. But if the Minister is patient enough to listen, then he will know what I am talking about. This Socialist Conference is an extremely important conference as it will be discussing the question of Malaysia. Today we see the so-called socialist Prime Minister is not prepared to face fellow socialists of this region on this Malaysia question, because he does not want to face the humiliation of being rebuked by the socialists from the Borneo territories. So he has sent his unimportant followers to go. It is really a shame that while this so-called socialist leader was prepared to go even to Thailand to play golf with colonial and reactionary elements in -

On a point of order, Sir. Is the Member suggesting that the Prime Minister stayed behind in this Assembly to move a motion and that he should insult this Assembly by going to some other meeting?

Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us see whether the Prime Minister of Singapore will be in Kuala Lumpur tomorrow. As I was saying, it is really a shame that while this so-called socialist leader was prepared to go even to Thailand to play golf with colonial and reactionary elements in this region, he is not prepared to go to Kuala Lumpur to discuss serious matters with fellow socialists.

Why do you not go?

Mr Speaker, Sir, today the P.A.P. leaders hail themselves only as "nationalists", and say that this Malaysia Plan is a "nationalist" plan. The P.A.P. leaders, in order to frighten anyone from opposing their Malaysia scheme, are branding everyone who opposes this scheme as "anti-nationalist and "Communist". Sir, do the P.A.P. leaders mean to say that the leaders of Party Ra'ayat of Brunei and S.U.P.P. are "Communists" and "anti-nationalists"? Mr Speaker. Sir,I wish to remind the Prime Minister that in one of his infamous twelve radio talks over Radio P.A.P. he described Inche Azahari, Chairman of Party Ra'ayat of Brunei, as a Malay nationalist. How is it then this Malay nationalist is opposed to the P.A.P. scheme of things? I wonder why the P.A.P. leaders, who are so clever in inventing all sorts of names to smear their opponents, have not been able to invent a name for the Malay nationalists of the Borneo territories who are opposing this Malaysia scheme. Moreover, Sir, Inche Boestamam and Inche Mohamed Ishak, both of the Socialist Front of Malaya, have also strongly condemned this Malaysia proposal, and both these socialists who are now at the Kuala Lumpur conference have been described as nationalists by none other than the Prime Minister himself.

What about Lim Ching Siong?

So where is the truth of the P.A.P. propaganda that only the Communists are opposed to the Malaysia scheme? Sir, even if it is true that the Communists are opposed to the Malaysia scheme, it does not necessarily mean that all who oppose this sinister scheme are Communists. The P.A.P. logic is that since the Communists are opposed to Malaysia, therefore, all who oppose Malaysia are Communists. This is a logic of a three-year old kid. It is just like saying that since the Prime Minister likes to drink beer, then all those who do not like to drink beer are Communists.

Lim Ching Siong drinks beer.

That is exactly the point.

Sir, the Minister for Culture has already answered. The colonial power in the past and even now in the Borneo territories are branding all those who are strongly anti-colonialist as Communists and subversives. Similarly the P.A.P. is using colonial tactics to frighten people from opposing them. Communism today has become synonymous with effective opposition. Sir, the P.A.P. are pretending to be democrats. But what are they doing to justify this pretence? Is it democratic just to bulldoze through important constitutional schemes without first consulting the people? Is it democratic for the P.A.P. to use force and the police against peaceful workers and labourers?

Order. All these little details and little jibes and so on, I think, are taking us further and further away from the motion. The motion is asking this House to declare its support of the plan proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, and an amendment which seeks to change the word "plan" to read "motion". I think what the hon. Member is doing now is going back to the debate which we had on the proposals on merger between Singapore and the Federation. All this has been said in that debate. I do not think it can be urged in this debate that the P.A.P. are foisting a Malaysia plan on the Borneo territories. It took 13 days to debate why the merger plans between Singapore and the Federation were unpalatable to the Barisan Sosialis. I would suggest that we now come back to the main theme of this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I personally feel that this is a bit too detailed. But the Minister for Finance uttered yesterday quite a lot about "democratic", "Communist", "undemocratic", and, I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is fair if I could just counter some of the points which he made yesterday. We in the Barisan Sosialis are opposed to all these Fascist acts. We insist that the people must he consulted. Their agreement should be obtained before we bring about any major constitutional changes. Is this undemocratic? We have called for general elections to allow the people to decide their future. Is this undemocratic? We have very strongly opposed all this indiscriminate use of force against our workers and labourers. Is this undemocratic? As my Party Secretary-General has said, let those who are not prepared to face the judgement of the people not try to pretend to be democratic. Let them moreover not try to label those who are prepared to be judged by the people any time as Communists and subversives. Our people fully realise that the P.A.P. leaders, by their own deeds, have made a mockery of democracy which they are pretending to defend. Mr Speaker. Sir, we have repeatedly said that this Malaysia scheme is a British-sponsored plan. Yesterday the Minister for Finance said that we broke away from the P.A.P. because we disagreed with their "merger" plan. Sir this is not true. The truth is that we left because we believe that the P.A.P. leaders were conspiring with the colonialists to bring upon our people a constitution aimed at prolonging colonial rule indirectly.

At Eden Hall!

The P.A.P. leaders are trying to bluff the people that this is not a British scheme but a "nationalist" scheme. Sir, I have been a Parliamentary Secretary in the P.A.P. Government before and I know exactly what was going on. Mr Speaker, I hate to reveal what happened to the Party before. But since the P.A.P. leaders are persisting with their bluff, I am forced to reveal publicly what I came to know in the Party. What I am going to say, Sir, would not only clear the minds of the public but, I am sure, would also shock some of the Government Back-benches whom I think still do not know this Party secret which will completely explode the P.A.P.'s bluff that this Malaysia scheme is not a colonial inspired scheme. Sir, round about July or August 1960, the Prime Minister told us at an important meeting that he had seen Lord Selkirk. It seemed that the British were worried about security of their possessions in the Borneo territories. It seemed that the British were worried about the way Indonesia was going. They were afraid that if the Indonesians could not solve their economic problems, they wou1d turn their attention on to North Kalimantan, that is, the British Borneo territories, after West Irian. So the British were apparently trying to bring the Borneo territories under the control of a friendly Federation Government before the Indonesians can lay claim to it. Sir, the Prime Minister also told us that Lord Selkirk had shown him a report which he, Lord Selkirk, was going to send to the Colonial Office. Sir, later on, in December 1960, Mr Duncan Sandys, the British Minister for Commonwealth Relations, came to Malaya. There was an important meeting at the Cameron Highlands at which were present not only top British officials in South-East Asia but also the representatives of the Austrialian and New Zealand Embassies in Malaya. The Prime Ministers of the Federation and of Singapore together with the Minister for Finance were also there. Sir, outwardly this meeting was supposed to be a beer and venison satay party. But we all knew that something important was cooking up and the secrecy of the whole matter made us suspect that it was something very fishy. Sir, I challenge the Prime Minster to deny what I have said about his telling us what Lord Selkirk had in mind. It is therefore very clear to all why the British are now so keen about this Malaysia scheme. It is for the simple reason that it was all started and inspired by the British. The British were faced with what they considered to be the problem of, firstly, having to counter the growing anti-colonial movement in the Borneo territories. Secondly, having to counter the possibility of the Indonesians making a claim on the North Borneo territories after West Irian. So obviously the British believe that by bringing all the Borneo territories under the control of the Federation Government, it would solve both their problems, since they regard the present Federation Government as being dependable to look after their vested interests in the Borneo territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, this plan suits the P.A.P. especially when they find that they are falling out of favour for Malaysia means the White Paper on merger. As far as the people of Singapore are concerned, this so-called merger will, in effect, enable the Federation Government to remove the P.A.P.'s political opponents before the next general election in 1964. 5.55 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not originally intend to take part in the debate on this motion because our Chairman has clearly pointed out the important aspect of this motion in the hope that the P.A.P. will take it as a reflection of the people's opinion in order to bring about some charge in ther attitude. In this way, they will not go ahead with their plan and thus go against the interest of the people. Just now my colleagues said that the principal aim of the Barisan Sosialis is to get democracy for the people. But the Prime Minister says that our principles are those of the Communists. So I must stand up and discuss with him the points he has raised. It is my opinion that if the principle of the Communists is correct, then there should be no question at all. But we all know that the Communists have no legal organisation in Singapore. But the Barisan Sosialis is a legal and legitimate organisation. Since the Prime Minister is one of the important figures in Singapore, what is his aim in saying such a thing? Is he trying to intimidate us? Or is he trying to silence us? I would say that the stand as made clear by the Prime Minister is not receiving any attention from the people. But the Government instead of paying attention to our stand is saying that we are the open front workers of the Communists. I say that such a situation is very bad. We all know that when we wish to debate anything, we must bring up logical arguments so as to find out where it is wrong, and where it is right; what is wrong and what is right, in order to bring out the truth. But they are not doing this. All they have been trying to do is to smear people. The fact that we have had so many Members speaking is attributable to the smear campaign made by the Government. As a result of their smear campaign, Members of the Ban-san Sosialis have had to stand up to explain why they are not Communists. I want to explain my views that the Greater Malaysia Plan is a sort of intrigue on the part of the imperialists and the colonialists. We all know that in South-East Asia many people are anti-colonialists because they want to get freedom in order to improve their livelihood. The same can be said of the five territories in Borneo, Singapore and the Federation. All we are fighting for and demanding is a democratic, independent nation so that we can look after our own affairs to improve our livelihood as far as possible. But the British know that the campaign of anti-colonialism is inevitable. They also know that this campaign cannot be suppressed by force, because it is the intention of international opinion to tear the veil off the British colonialist to show the world for what it is. So they know that it is impossible to suppress the mounting wave of anti-colonialism in this area. We know that before 1955, some Members in the Legislative Council were nominated by the British Government. In 1959, the British colonialists were forced to have representatives elected by the people. This shows that the political clam of the people is now receiving attention and, to some extent, they are quite successful. But they are not happy with what they have got because at present we still have many restrictions imposed on us. For example, there is in existence the Internal Security Council which is a stumbling-block to our national economic expansion and the freedom of the people. So we want to go a step further and advance politically. We hope that we will be able to have complete self-government. But the British Government, realising this, is trying to resort to delaying tactics. So they have to get pro-colonialist people to bring about plans such as that of Malaysia in order to extend their influence in this area. Now, let us talk about the three territories in Borneo. We know that there will be no end to the political claim of the peoples in these territories, because they are still under colonial rule and they are very concerned with their political future because the present situation is not conducive to their interest in view of certain oppression and suppression. There is widespread dissatisfaction because the people have their own self-respect. So they are coming forward to organise themselves into numerous political Parties in the hope that these political Parties will bring them a brighter political future. The British realise this stand. They know that sooner or later in Borneo there will also be self-government for the people as what is taking place here in Singapore. They also know that the people will fight against colonialism. Real sing this, the British are trying to get people who only look after their own interests and who, ideologically, can be made use of by the colonialists to work for them. So this Greater Malaysia Plan has been talked about for the last few months. A great ideal of publicity has been given thereto in order to cover up the political claims of the people in these five territories. You can see why I say the colonialists are trying to get the pro-colonialists to cover up the claims of the people for a better political future. For example, we can see that on internal and external affairs, the Federation Government is outwardly an independent country, but some of its powers are still being held by the Right-wing people. We see that in the Congo, where there is trouble now, the Federation Government is able to send troops to go to its rescue in order to maintain peace in that country. Let us think. Since the Government of the Federation of Malaya is able to send out troops to maintain peace in any country, how is it that British troops are still in Malaya? Since Malaya itself is able to help others militarily, why should it have foreign troops on its own land? Another point I wish to raise is that, as far as external affairs are concerned, the line taken by the Federation Government is on the side of the West. When there is something wrong in the East, the Malayan representative in the United Nations will join the West in condemning the culprit. But in the case of West Iran where the Indonesian Government is fighting to recover its own territory, it is only right for the Federation Government to support such a move. But -

Order. I do not see how all this relates to the motion. I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to debate the action of the Federation Government as regards Indonesia. It has nothing at all to do with this motion.

(In Mandarin): I was saying that since this Greater Malaysia Plan is a political issue, therefore, in order to explain how bad it is, I must touch upon the Federation Government, so as to show to this House what its political inclinations are and to prove by these means how right we are in our political stand on this motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chairman of my Party has dealt with almost every aspect of this motion. I feel it is not necessary for me to go any further in this respect. But I would like to answer two points raised by Members of the Government to show that they are theoretically bankrupt. They are trying to make a farce in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, the other day, our Minister for Home Affairs stood up to make a speech in which he said that even the British themselves admitted that they were only a third-class nation in the world, So, according to the Minister, the British might be more practical politically and that is why they are interested in bringing about a Greater Malaysia. I feel that his political view is very backward because we know that everybody is practical in any issue. As I have already pointed out, there is a rising claim for more political rights by the peoples in the five territories, and the British, being practical, must do something about it to protect their own interests in these territories. The fact that they are trying to retreat is nothing but a show, because they are trying to make an advance by way of an ostensible retreat. In this way, if there is any discontentment among the peoples in these five territories, to whom can they go with their grievances? They can neither go to the British nor to their own Government. So, in this way, there will be internal conflict amongst the people themselves. In this way, the conflict between the peoples in this region and the colonialists may be covered up. That is why I say the British are very practical. Now, if you condemn some people whose influence is very great, it is very dangerous. So, if they want to do anything to anybody, they must wait until that somebody is not prepared for it. So I would like to tell the Minister for Home Affairs that he must not think that since the British Government is admitting that it is a third-class nation, we must not do anything to fight for greater and better political rights. Therefore, we must not talk about Greater Malaysia and merger without paying attention to the actual situation. We therefore understand that behind the practical attitude of the British, there is a motive. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minster had nothing to advance as to why he had to speak in that fashion. The Government understood that they were not correct in their stand and political ideologies. That is why they brought up analogies such as marriage and so on. They said there was no point in arguing what the future child would be before the marriage. This kind of argument is unnecessary. If they want to talk of such things in such a fashion, we can do likewise. I would like to say that before our marriage we should ensure whether the partner would be the right partner for us. We know that the White Paper merger proposals are full of evil provisions. Then before the marriage, we should know whether our partner is a leper or a T.B. patient, because if he is diseased we should fight shy of such a person. How can we make a decision if we do not know the person who is going to be our partner? I think everybody will want to find out first who the person is before making up his mind. That is only common sense. I would like to refer to the Minister for Home Affairs who said something about a marriage with Indonesia. The other day I also heard the Minister for Education touch on his point. An allegation was made that the Indonesian Communists had a talk with a certain reporter. It was found from this talk that their views were the same as those of the Barisan Sosialis. A further allegation was that our Secretary-General had given his views to a pro-Communist newspaper, the Bintang Timur. He is quoted as having said that we were in favour of a merger with Indonesia. This is not a fact. If the concept of the Communists in Indonesia is the same as that of ours, does it mean that we are under the control of the Communists? It is ridiculous to argue in such a way. The Prime Minister has also said that the failure of the Malayan Communists could be attributed to the fact that the majority supporters of the Communists were Chinese. He also said that the Malayan Communists were under the control of the Communists in China. The Government now accuse us of being under the control of the Indonesian Communists. This goes to prove that their arguments have been inconsistent and contradictory. They are now trying to smear us. I feel they have also been inconsistent in the speeches they have made before and lately. How can speeches of such a nature be convincing to the people? Now let us talk about the Four-Party Alliance. One of their representatives here has been very keen to make speeches in support of the Malaysia Plan. We understand what kind of an organisation this Four-Party Alliance is. Everybody knows the nature of this organisation. They have always been supporting and praising the P.A.P.'s Malaysia Plan. [Interruption]. Bad proposals will always receive the support of bad people.

I suppose the conversation must be interesting because the Member for Jalan Kayu is replying, I take it. As I say, I always like to hear female voices in this Assembly, but I suggest that the Lady (the Member for Delta) who has just spoken can give vent to her feelings when she speaks.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Minister for Culture said that the British unified the monetary system in this region and that this provided a sound foundation for Malaysia. I feel this argument is not correct. We know that Singapore is also under the control of the British. Our trade and currency are also under the control of the British. But may I ask: how is it that unemployment is so rampant in Singapore? How is it that the people of Singapore find it difficult to earn a livelihood? How can it be said that the foundation of Malaysia has already been well laid and that everything will be all right once Malaysia is established? I think the Minister should consult a specialist. Maybe he consulted the wrong specialist, so that he is now very confused over this question. If the people do not have political rights, how can they advance politically? The control of politics affects economic development. That is why I say that the Minister's arguments are ridiculous. The Minister for Culture also said that the economic unity of Malaysia should be preserved. He said that with more people and with more areas coming in, there will be more rapid development in this region. This argument has been rebutted by the Member for Upper Serangoon. I would also like to touch on this too. We know that the nature of the British colonialists is not different from that of the American colonialists. Let us take the example of America. In the American hemisphere, there is an island called Cuba which was a member of the Pan-American organisation. In this organisation, she was oppressed by the United States of America. The people of Cuba went through a revolution because of the economic difficulties and difficult living conditions which faced them. Until lately, Cuba was oppressed by the U.S.A. This goes to rebut the argument of the Minister for Culture. From this we can understand the nature of the existence of colonialism. The U.S.A. is now trying to gang up with certain Latin American countries against Cuba. From this we can see how cruel these colonialist countries can be in their relationship with an island like Cuba. Such colonialist countries will only have friendly dealings with those countries which toe their line; otherwise they will adopt all kinds of oppressive measures. So even if the people in this area want to lay a good foundation to improve their lot, I think the colonialists will adopt a stand which is against the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development mentioned three political powers in the world: the Western bloc, the Afro-Asian bloc and the Communist bloc. He said that the Eastern and the Western blocs have been trying to destroy each other and that the existence of the other neutral bloc forms a kind of balance between the two other blocs. May I ask to which bloc do the P.A.P. belong? The other day the Chairman of our Party said that the people of Singapore, the three Borneo territories and Malaya do not like to be involved in any power politics. What they are mainly concerned with is to earn their livelihood in peaceful surroundings. They do not like to be involved in a nuclear war so that they would not become the target of any nuclear attack. We do not know to which bloc the P.A.P. Government would want to belong. According to the tone of the conversation in the C.P.A. Room, we gather that they are more inclined to the Western bloc. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to end here. I strongly oppose this motion because the basis is not correct. 6.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because the P.A.P. Government knows that our people resist its merger plan, it is now trying, like a clever quack doctor, to impress our people by saying that all the people in Borneo think that Malaysia is a good thing. Sir, as a result of my visit to Borneo, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the people there feel the same way as our people here. Their suspicions and fears, like those of our people, are very legitimate. But, of course, there are certain people who try to tell the people of Borneo that Malaysia is a sure cure for all their ills, just as the P.A.P. is telling us. Sir, their propaganda is that Malaysia must be effected now or else the people will be doomed forever. But in spite of all the excitement among these few individuals, which I understand is motivated, by their selfish desire to be Mentri Besers, governors, etc., the Borneo people have shown little interest in the way of accepting Malaysia. This is so because, as subject peoples, they are preoccupied with the anti-colonial struggle. Freedom from subjugation is the first thing that they want to realise. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis, unlike the P.A.P., respect the desire of a people to be free. We have stated publicly that any constitutional arrangement for the Borneo people must be based on the principle of self-determination, and, above all, it must have the consent of the people themselves. This is the stand that is in conformity with that of the Sarawak United People's Party and the Party Ra'ayat in Brunei, the two largest Parties in the Borneo territories. For the information of this House, Sir, I am told the Sarawak United People's Party has more than 40,000 members, and the Party Ra'ayat Brunei has about 26,000 members. Sir, Malaysia as proposed by the Federation Government is opposed by these two Parties. There are some Right-wing Parties besides these two which also oppose Malaysia in Borneo. Sir, are all these people Communists? I only hope -

Order. The Minister for Finance, even in walking into this Chamber, becomes disorderly. [Interruption] Order. It seems to me that there is peace until the Minister for Finance comes into the Chamber.

Sir, the Party Ra'ayat and the Sarawak United People's Party demand self-determination, first. They say that only after independence can they think about Malaysia. Are the P.A.P. leaders deliberately going to ignore the views of these Parties? These two socialist Parties, as I said, are the major Parties in the Borneo territories with a mass following. As a so-called socialist Party, why does the P.A.P. not listen and respect the views of socialist Parties in the Borneo territories? Why does it only ally itself with Right-wing and reactionary groups? Sir, the call for self-determination is also supported by the Socialist Front and its leaders in the Federation of Malaya, particularly, Sir, by leaders like Inche Ahmad Boestamam, Inche Mohamed Ishak, both of whom, as the Member for Havelock said, were described by our Prime Minister as nationalists. So what is the P.A.P. bluff all about? The P.A.P. strategy, as has already been seen in this debate, is to label all those who oppose the present Malaysia scheme as Communists, hoping thereby to frighten and silence those who see through the treacherous aims behind the P.A.P. scheme. I believe that our Prime Minister once said that a word can have three meanings. Apparently, Sir, he excels in the art of using words in the meaning that will best suit the P.A.P.'s interests. For example, Sir, take the word "merger". When the P.A.P. uses the word "merger", it does not mean what everybody understands the word to mean. And for us in the Barisan Sosialis, when we use the word "self-determination" we mean that the people must be allowed to decide their own affairs. That is what the political Parties in the Borneo territories want, and that is also what they mean when they demand self-determination. They want the fundamental right to decide their own destiny. This, Sir, is the birth-right of man. The Borneo people want elections immediately to let the people decide their own future. Sir, are the P.A.P. leaders saying that they, in fact, oppose it? Let them categorically say whether they support or oppose the demand by the political Parties in the Borneo territories for self-determination. Just "yes" or "no", and not in words which, according to them, may have three meanings. Sir, when the Dutch use the word "self-determination", they mean a pretext to set up a puppet nation in West Irian so that they can perpetuate their colonial rule, Just like De Gaulle's version of self-determination for the Algerian people. The question of self-determination in West Irian, merely means that the people of West Irian must decide for themselves. But this is not what the Dutch want. They want to decide for the Papuans through their colonial agents. And in terms of self-determination, there is no doubt that the people of West Irian want to be part of the Indonesian nation. And all Afro-Asia accepts this position. But, Sir, can the same be said about the people in the Borneo territories? The Member for Queens-town has already pointed out that the Afro-Asian Permanent Secretariat, which is not a Communist organisation, has condemned in a statement issued in Cairo recently that Malaysia is a British plot. Perhaps now the Prime Minister will even venture to suggest that the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organisation is a Communist front organisation because it has condemned Malaysia. Sir, can the P.A.P. say that the people of the Borneo territories are in favour of this Malaysia scheme? Why do they not tell the British masters to hold elections in Borneo to test the truth?

Why do you not ask Lord Selkirk?

Sir, if the P.A.P. really believe that the Borneo people are all for the Malaysia scheme, why are they not prepared to put it to a test at a general election, which is what the Borneo Parties are demanding? You will remember we are supposed to be the Communists, supposed to be the undemocratic people, supposed to be people who are working to wreck the democratic system. In any democracy, an election is supposed to be the means by which the people express their desire. All that we say is hold elections; give the people an adequate opportunity to express their desire. The P.A.P. is not only avoiding elections in Singapore but in the Borneo territories as well. Why are they so scared to let the people decide? These are nothing more than fake democrats.

On a point of clarification.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Member suggesting that the P.A.P. Government in Singapore should hold elections in the Borneo territories?

Not for one moment was I suggesting that the P.A.P. Government should hold elections in Borneo. I wonder, Sir, if at all the P.A.P. goes to Brunei, for example - I am told the Prime Minister now dare not even step into Brunei - but if the P.A.P. should bold elections in Borneo on a P.A.P. ticket, I wonder what will happen to them. I did not certainly mean that the P.A.P. Government should conduct elections in Borneo. What I mean is that the P.A.P. is one of the foremost champions of the Malaysia scheme together with the British and the Federation Government. And they claim to be democrats. The Borneo people say, "We want elections. We want independence first. Give us the opportunity." Why do they not arrange it? All that I am saying is that the British are postponing elections for the Borneo people. And these so-called P.A.P. democrats are helping the British to postpone elections for the people. They are helping the British to prevent the Borneo people from speaking through their elected leaders. What sort of democrats are they? Sir, as I said, we the Barisan Sosialis support the demand of the Borneo people for general elections because we believe the people must decide their own future themselves. We who are supposed to be Communists are more keen to let the people decide through democratic elections than those in the P.A.P. who are supposed to be democrats. Sir, yesterday the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Finance once again touched on what is termed the "unholy alliance" between the Communists and the British. I notice even today the Minister for Culture has been interjecting with words like "Lord Selkirk", etc. Sir, we know that the Prime Minister has proved his ability as a golf player and as a beer drinker. In fact, he is now proving his ability in story telling. When the twelve radio talks were going on, I was told that the story tellers in Chinatown were all quite anxious whether their business would be adversely affected. But luckily for them, Sir, our people in Singapore like to hear stories that are narrated by people in person and not by those who hide in the air-conditioned studio of Radio Singapore. Sir, today we see our Prime Minister - a golf player, a beer drinker and a story teller - now becoming a circus player as well. Sir, we have all heard of the circus act starring the lion and the bear. Last month we heard that the Prime Minister was catching foxes and hunting tigers and lions. He also told us that he dare not catch the fox by the tail for fear of being bitten. Sir, if the Prime Minister has any good points about him, quite obviously, Sir, courage is not one of them. Sir, this reference to the British bear and the Communist fox joining together to hunt the P.A.P. really would have taken the cake had the Prime Minister also given himself an animal personification. Probably the Prime Minister cannot decide which animal he would like to imitate, since evidently he likes to imitate more than one at any one time. But, Sir, may I help him out of his dilemma, and suggest that he take the choice of a chameleon? Then, Sir, I think it would all not only sound but look very delicate. Sir, I do not want to spend much of my time in denying stupid propositions that the Communists have become allied with the imperialists. If this theory in any part of the world is put forward, one would straightaway catch the one who expounds this and send him to the mental hospital. Sir, I have here a much more serious thing to deal with. I want to refer to the Straits Times report of Alex Josey's interview with D. N. Pritt.

Aidit. You must not get the two Communists mixed up!

The Minister for Culture is calling Mr D. N. Pritt a Communist.

He is dead.

For the information of the Minister, I am sure the Prime Minister will remember that once the Prime Minister said he would have the greatest inspiration by just being a chauffeur to Mr D. N. Pritt. And for the information of the Minister for Culture, Sir, Mr D. N. Pritt is not dead. He is retired. He is still in London. Sir, I am referring to this article because the whole basis of attack on the Barisan Sosialis has been on one stand which the P.K.I. (the Parti Komunis Indonesia) has taken. This is the Straits Times of 24th January. The play-up was simply terrific: `WHY INDONESIAN COMMUNISTS CONDEMN MALAYSIA The Communist Party Resolution' And to top it all, Sir, an editorial: `Merger and the Reds'. All this is done quite deliberately in an attempt to discredit the Barisan Sosialis in the eyes of the English-educated. Sir, the Straits Times have been, as usual, a willing party and have co-operated with the P.A.P. Sir, I suggest that that piece was mischievously timed to coincide with the opening of the Malaysia debate, obviously to create the impression that only the Communists are against the Malaysia set up, and if the Barisan Sosialis opposes Malaysia, it must necessarily be Communists. Sir, Mr Alex Josey, who I believe live in the same house with the Minister for Culture, is today one of the P.A.P.'s top advisers. In fact, Sir, he is the direct pipe-line to the British, and it is widely rumoured among political circles that Alex Josey is an MI-S man like G. G. Thomson. Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

Point of order?

Point of clarification. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Point of clarification.

Would the Member for Thomson also agree that Mr Alex Josey is also the pipe-line from Lim Ching Siong to me?

Sir, we have found in recent days and also in the earlier days, Sir, that every time the Minister for Culture wants to know what Mr Lim Ching Siong thinks, he sends for Alex Josey. Alex Josey used to come with shorts and with slippers on. I think he feared that if he came with a coat and tie, he might not be admitted to the Singapore General Employees' Union. So he dressed as a simple man. But anyway, Sir, I have no doubt that some or us - Mr Lim tells me, so does Mr Woodhull - that when they talk to Mr Alex Josey, they are not too sure whether they are talking to Mr Alex Josey or the Minister for Culture. That is because these two great fellows speak the same language. Sir, Mr Alex Josey is well, known in South-East Asian countries for his notorious activities. Many people in this part of the world take, him to be a P.A.P. spokesman.

You take him to be Lim Ching Siong's spokesman!

Sir, it does not logically follow that just because the P.K.I. - the Indonesian Communist Party - is against Malaysia, therefore, all those who are against Malaysia are Communists. Sir, this is typical P.A.P. bankrupt logic. Some of my colleagues have exposed the stupidity of this logic. It is like saying that since the Prime Minister likes to play golf, then all those who like to play golf are P.A.P. members, or those' who do not play golf are Communists. Sir, this reminds me of -

Castro plays golf!

Therefore, what is he? Communist - or not a Communist?

Communist.

Communist. Sir, this is typical of the logic that I heard when I was in Standard III. It runs something like this. Mr A is an American. Mr A is a liar. No - Mr A is - sorry, Sir,It is a vicious circle, and although I learned it in Standard III I still remember it.

You are still in Standard III.

And I think this is a typical demonstration of P.A.P. logic. Mr A is an. American. All Americans are liars. Therefore, Mr A is a liar. Therefore, what he says in untrue. Therefore, Americans are not liars. Therefore, Mr A is not a liar. Therefore, what he says is true. Therefore, Americans are liars, and therefore what he says is untrue. And it can go on, Sir. This is P.A.P. logic. They stop where it is convenient for them. It is very simple logic. All they have to do is to sit back quietly and say it over and over again and they will find that it can go on. As I was saying, as far as the P.A.P. are concerned, they just stop where it is convenient for them; whether they want to make Mr A a liar or not a liar; or whether they want to make the Americans liars or not liars.

Scared!

Sir, we are not scared. We are not -

Order. I thought the Member for Thomson was doing very well by ignoring the interjections that are coming from across the Floor. That is the best way to treat interruptions which tend to become disorderly.

Very well, Sir. I shall follow your advice. Sir. Communists throughout the world condemned the murder of Lumumba as the work of colonialists. So did the P.A.P. Does that make the P.A.P. Communists? Sir, Communists, as the Minister for Culture admits, are anti-colonialists. Does it mean that all anti-colonialists are Communists? Are people like Soekarno, Nehru, etc., who have proved, unlike the P.A.P. leaders, that they are anti-colonialists, also Communists? Sir, the Prime Minister is very fond of mentioning Soekarno and Nehru all the time. Sir, these men have proved to be anti-colonialists, unlike the Prime Minister. Nehru, for example, spent more than ten years in prison. Our Prime Minister has not had the occasion of even spending ten seconds in prison. He has visited it, of course. Sir, the Communists say that neo-colonialism is no good. You will remember, Sir, yesterday the Minister for Culture was talking a lot about neo-colonialism. The Communists say neo-colonialism is no good. But, Sir, people like Soekarno, Nkhruma, etc, also say that neo-colonialism is no good. Are they, as the Americans are so fond of saying, Communists or pro-Communists? Sir, theirs is the logic of people who have no argument and reasoning, but who rely more on smears and threats. This is the logic of those who do not try to win over people by arguments and reasoning but who try to frighten people into submission. This certainly is not the attitude of true democrats. Sir, we must congratulate the Prime Minister on the tremendous energy and keenness with which he went about trying to sell the idea of Malaysia, in fact, Sir, I gather the P.A.P. was so anxious they even by-passed the Chairman of the Singapore C.P.A., when appointing delegates to the C.P.A. Consultative Committee Meeting in Jesselton.

Order. I do not think that is a fair statement at all. I think it is an unfair statement because I know it is not correct. I do not want to get into a debate with any Member. But my name as Chairman of the C.P.A. must not be dragged into these matters. If the hon. Member wishes to know the truth, he can always come and see me.

As I said. Sir, this is what I gather and I shall not pursue it any further. In fact, Sir, our Prime Minister seems to be more concerned with the success of the Malaysia proposals than the man who first voiced the idea, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Sir, we saw how at the C.P.A. Conference at Kuching, he betrayed his anxiety to force the Malaysia proposals on the Borneo people by his repeated attempts to commit the Borneo delegations by trying to turn a purely Consultative Committee into a negotiating body, one that would take some form of decision on behalf of the Borneo people - Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

On a point of order?

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

No. Sir. I do not want to waste time. His Prime Minister can reply for him. Again, Sir, by his eagerness to answer questions directed not at him, but at the leader of the Federation of Malaya delegations, anyone who listened to even the radio forums would know it was the Prune Minister of Singapore who was talking most of the time. This anxiety on the part of the P.A.P. leadership is perfectly understandable. Taking into consideration the political situation in Singapore where, should the P.A.P. be so foolish enough as to put their claim that they have the confidence of the people to the acid test of a general election, they would be utterly defeated -

We will have 13 by-elections.

We know, Sir, and the Prime Minister also knows that he has not the slightest chance of winning in Tanjong Pagar. That is why the once proud and arrogant Member for Tanjong Pagar, a man who in the past has only been too eager to challenge all and sundry to a by-election, now prefers to play golf and dine with the Tunku in the cool heights of Fraser's Hill rather than go to the people of Tanjong Pagar. In fact, there is a strong rumour that despite all the tailoring that can be done to a referendum, the Government may not even hold one. Sir, I am told the Prime Minister, when asked in a recent prepared question session whether the result of the proposed referendum would be binding, he answered that only history could decide. A very smart answer indeed; the true hallmark of a slick lawyer. But unfortunately such smartness does not create confidence. Why has the Prime Minister on more than one occasion betrayed his anxiety regarding the success of the Malaysia proposals? Sir, it is certainly not because of the so-called recent advances why there should be Malaysia. The reason is obvious. The Tunku has made it evident that there will be no merger of the P.A.P. type without his type of Malaysia coming into being. Sir, should Malaysia fail, his attempt to hide behind an unfair constitutional arrangement will fail and thus he will meet his political doom. Sir, his political survival now does not depend on the people of Singapore but on the Tunku. He hopes that the Tunku, being a generous man and who is ever so eager to refer industrial disputes to his Minister of Internal Security and not to his Minister of Labour, would remove the P.A.P.'s opponents, namely, those in the Barisan Sosialis, and thus guarantee him another span of political life Such is the selfish aim of the P.A.P. leadership. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last -

Order. I am not quite certain what the Member for Thomson said. Is he alleging that the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya is going to do all those things, or is he alleging that the Prime Minister of Singapore would request the Tunku to do all those things? There is quite a great difference in that. Can I have an answer?

I was not suggesting that. This is a possibility that is likely to happen, Sir, especially when the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya himself has indicated in the debate in Parliament that he may help the Singapore Government to reduce the number of strikes and so on, especially in view of what our own Prime Minister has said in this Chamber, that in 1962 many other things are going to happen. I was merely suggesting that it is a possibility for Singapore to see repression in the near future.

The point that the Chair must make, and make very strongly, is that direct insinuations of improper conduct by a Prime Minister of a friendly country is completely out of order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not in any way insinuate improper conduct on the part of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Sir, in the past few months, various reasons have been advanced why the people of Singapore, Brunei, Sabah and Sarawak should accept the Malaysia proposals of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, proposals which are backed to the hilt by the British Colonial Office and the leadership of the P.A.P. In brief, Sir, these reasons are, to sum them up: 1. That it will bring prosperity to the peoples of this Federation of Malaysia; 2. These countries, if independent, cannot survive for long in the present world situation; and 3. That Malaysia is a way of acquiring independence for the peoples of the Borneo territories. Sir, I shall deal with these so-called reasons one by one and show that they are just mere excuses clearly presented so as to hide the ulterior motives of the sponsors of Malaysia - the Alliance Government, the British Government and the P.A.P. Government. Sir, one of the excuses put forward is that Malaysia will bring about economic prosperity for all. If you will remember, the Minister for Culture spent a considerable time yesterday expounding on this. Sir, the ills of our country stem directly from the economic system under which we live. A large area with a bigger population cannot by themselves solve our economic problems. This is elementary. India with its large population and land mass is faced with just as grave economic ills. The only way these economic problems can be solved is by substituting a planned economy for a capitalist economy. In short, only with the success, in my view, of socialism over capitalism can there be prosperity for all. The P.A.P. still claims to be a socialist Party and claims to be in favour of a planned economy. Do they seriously maintain that the plan of Malaysia, voiced first in the open by the Tunku and supported later by the Colonial Office, has as its objective a planned economy for this region? The Tunku does not believe in socialism. He represents a Right-wing Party and has openly said so. One can hardly expect the British to encourage socialism in this area. Furthermore, this Malaysia Plan is opposed by all Left-wing Parties in the Borneo territories and supported only by some Right-wing reactionaries. Can the P.A.P. therefore honestly claim that this plan will promote the cause of socialism, a cause they claim to believe in? Why have they found themselves in the camp of the Right-wing forces? Even in this Assembly their staunch supporters are. the Right-wing reactionary elements in the S.P.A., the very man whom only a couple of years ago they treated with contempt. Sir, the only explanation is that because of their selfish desire to remain in office, they are prepared to put forward whatever excuses they can think of. The second argument advanced by the P.A.P. leaders and also by the colonial administration in Sarawak is that the Borneo territories, if independent, cannot survive in the present world situation. The P.A.P. and the Federation Government are trying to whip up an anti-Communist campaign hoping to scare everybody into accepting their Malaysia. They are trying to sell the falsehood that if we do not join in the Malaysia scheme of things, we will all be swallowed up by the Communists. They say the small countries nowadays cannot survive without being conquered by the Communists. So they say. "Come, leave the Communists; the Federation Government will protect you." But the people of Singapore and the Borneo territories are now burdened not with Communism, but with colonialism. What they want to do is to get rid of colonialism straightaway. Does this Malaysia scheme really get rid of colonial exploitation? We find the colonial power is among the most enthusiastic people behind the scheme. It is obvious that this Malaysia scheme is going to perpetuate colonialism in disguise. Sir, none other than the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya himself has said he fully appreciates the fact that the colonial power has much vested interests in this area which it wishes to protect. The Tunku has made it clear that he is not going to harm British economic interest in this area. Sir, the crux of colonial exploitation lies in the economic domination of our people by the colonial power, and political power will have no meaning whatsoever if we are not going to attain economic independence at the same time. But it is this economic domination over the people that this Malaysia scheme is aimed at perpetuating. Or for what else, Sir, could the, colonial power be so enthusiastic over this scheme? In other words, what the Federation Government and the P.A.P. want us to accept is, in fact, a continuation of colonial economic exploitation of our people for the exchange of protection against a ghost enemy. Sir, must our people pay this heavy price as protection money? Sir, we see around us in Asia and Africa numerous small nations surviving by themselves without having to allow their former colonial masters to continue to exploit the people. Are these nations of the Afro-Asia group faced with this fictitious danger of Communism? No, Sir,In this world of nuclear weapons, no nation other than the big powers can really protect themselves from a nuclear onslaught. Today the biggest protection force is the weight of world opinion. It is this force that is really protecting the small and neutral nations of Afro-Asia. They realise that economic freedom is the real aim of the people and that their countries cannot really be considered as being independent until, they have achieved economic independence. To be linked economically to Western capitalist nations is certainly not going to achieve freedom for the broad masses of our people. And what our people right now want is the complete eradication of colonial exploitation of our country. What our people are faced with today is colonial exploitation. No political freedom can have any meaning whatsoever to our people if it does not seek to remove the economic exploitation. Sir, how can our people be convinced by the Tunku and the P.A.P. leaders that they will be free under this Malaysia scheme when they know that they will still continue to be exploited by the colonial power in disguise? It is no use trying to ask us to fight some fictitious enemy when we are not going to be freed from our present enemy - the colonial power. Thus the Communist scare is so transparent that even the British Government does not come to mention it in the publication "Malaysia and Sarawak" by the British Government of Sarawak in January this year. No mention is made of this aspect in all its six pages extolling the advantages of Malaysia. Sir, the Prime Minister of Singapore has on more than one occasion drawn the analogy between oil-rich Brunei and oil-rich Kuwait which, as we all know, is being claimed by Iraq. Sir, whom &es he think threatens Brunei or harbours evil intentions towards Brunei? Sir, this is deliberately being done to substantiate his claim that no small independent nation can survive under the present world situation. 7.20 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is obvious whom he is referring to. Iraq is too far away to lay claim to Brunei. The country which they point an accusing finger at but would not name is obviously Indonesia. This attitude is not the way to the building of friendly ties and relationship between neighbours. Sir, Indonesia has made it amply clear to the people of Brunei and to all others that they harbour no such intentions, and I do not see any reason why we should not accept such policies at their face value. Sir, no nation which treasures the friendship of its neighbours should point a suspecting finger at them. Sir, the third argument - in my opinion perhaps one of the strongest arguments - put forward for Malaysia as proposed by the Tunku is that the people of these territories would become independent. Sir, this plan is put forward as an anti-colonial effort to help the subject people of the British colonies to achieve independence. This plan unfortunately becomes suspect if for no other reason than that it has the full backing of the colonial government It is like asking the British to kick themselves out of Borneo. Sir, such logic is an insult to the intelligence of the people of the Borneo territories. Let us credit them with more intelligence. We have heard that the declared aim of the British Government is to grant independence to all colonial territories as soon as they are ready for it. We all know that the Indians were never ready for it until they were prepared to throw the British out by force. The recent examples of Goa and West Irian merely prove one thing, that no colonial power wants to give away a colonial concession unless and until she is forced to get out one way or the other - by peaceful means or by the use of armed might. But, for argument purposes, even if we are prepared to ignore historical facts and accept British propaganda as gospel truth, then the logical conclusion would be that if by Malaysia the people of these British colonies can be independent, then these same people must be judged ready for independence today. The colonial government must agree to this as they openly support the Tunku's proposals for Malaysia. Why then if these people are ready for independence do the British still refuse to give them independence? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, why must they be given independence only if the Federation Government can control them? Sir, the answer is very clear. The British are afraid that the people of the Borneo territories may try to achieve genuine independence, independence that is both political and economic. The British want the system of exploitation to continue. They want to see their super profits from their investments guaranteed, and the Alliance Government of the Federation of Malaya, now hand in glove with the once socialist-inclined P.A.P., have proved to be the best local group to look after British financial interests. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how can anyone seriously believe that the Malaysia Plan as proposed is an anti-colonial step to help the people of the Borneo territories to achieve independence? Sir, if the P.A.P. and the Alliance Government are genuinely sincere in wanting to set the people of the Borneo territories free, if they sincerely believe in their anti-colonial talk, then the obvious course for them is to support the popular movement in this territory and fight for the principle of self-determination, especially when all the socialist Parties in this region want to fight for independence first. Sir, today the line can be drawn-the Sarawak United People's Party, the Party Ra'ayat of Brunei. Where does the P.A.P. stand?

There are also other Parties there.

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, undoubtedly there are other Parties. But I hope that the Minister and the PAP. Government are not suggesting that they want to co-operate with the other Parties, for if that is the case, then it is an admission that they want to co-operate with the Right-wing Parties because, apart from the socialist Parties, the other Parties have openly declared their stand as Right-wing Parties.

We co-operate with nobody.

Sir, to collaborate with the British and to partake in the appointment of a Commission to decide the destiny of the people of these territories is hardly the way to gain their confidence and support. Sir, we believe that the people of Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah know what is good for themselves. We believe they must be allowed to decide their own destiny themselves. Therefore, any proposal for Malaysia must be negotiated directly between the representatives of the Federation Government and the rightful representatives of the people of the Borneo territories.

The P.K.I.

As the Minister for Finance knows, it is stupid to suggest the P.K.I. because the P.K.I. does not function in the Borneo territories.

On a point of clarification.

If the Member will give way.

No, Sir.

You are afraid.

I am not afraid. I do not want -

Please continue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, -

Why do you follow the P.K.I.?

Order.

I do not want to turn this Chamber into one that would make it look like a coffee-shop.

Then you should not talk nonsense.

Sir, to impose something upon the people without their agreement is akin to the buying of slaves from their owners. Such an arrangement can only spell unhappiness for all.

That is why you are not in the Government.

Sir, the Barisan Sosialis believes in the concept of a Malaysia that will really facilitate economic planning and advancement. But this does not mean that we support the proposals of Malaysia as put forward by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. These proposals, as we have pointed out, do not guarantee democracy, equality and freedom for all the peoples of this proposed federation. We have debated in great detail the P.A.P.'s proposals. I do not intend to go over the arguments again. Suffice it to mention that Singapore, according to the Tunku, will not be admitted as a full member hut as a State with less rights than the others; in short, with an inferior status. Malaysia can only succeed if all the peoples of the territories voluntarily agree to come together. It can only be successful if it guarantees equality and democracy to all. To thrust the scheme agreed to beforehand by the British Government and the Alliance and the P.A.P. on the people without their having the right to choose can serve only the ulterior motives of these plotters and not the interests of the peoples of these territories.

Not the interests of Communists. That is what you mean.

Sir, I am sick and fed up with this talk of Communists -

You will be more fed up talking -

Order.

- and we have spent time replying to these charges and smears. Only a little earlier in my speech I did touch on the basis used by the P.A.P. Government to say that opposition to Malaysia is Communist-inspired.

Rubbish! I never said that.

If only the Minister for Finance had not gone to have perhaps a glass of beer, and if he had sat here and listened to what I have said, I am sure he would not have come here and tried to make interjections. For the information of the Minister for Finance, I am quite prepared to leave my main text and to take time to reply to every interjection that he makes. But I do not want to do that because I think the time of this House should not be spent on replying to stupid remarks made by bankrupt politicians who are fast drowning.

That is what you think.

Sir, we ate accused of being people who want to wreck the democratic system. In this House, you will have noted that on the West Irian issue, when I was speaking, the Prime Minister's interruptions were clear-cut indications that it was he who was trying to wreck the system. It was he who wanted the debate to be carried out with no regard to the rules of debate, and not we who are accused of being Communists. Sir, I tell this for the information of the Minister for Finance and the other -

Order. I think it is convenient for the hon. Member to just confine himself to the motion. If he can ignore these interjections, the quicker will the debate be disposed of.

I shall once again accept the advice of the Chair and ignore these interjections. The principles of the Tunku's proposals are at variance with democracy. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, they are not principles which anyone who believes in the right of people to choose their own destiny can support. Sir, as my Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, has said, we must not fall into the P.A.P. propaganda trap of crying high and low about the principle of Malaysia. The P.A.P. wants everybody to get tangled in the so-called principle so that they will be unwittingly made to appear as though they are supporting the present Malaysia scheme. Sir, the other day the Prime Minister appeared extremely happy when the Member for Anson moved his amendment, and became even happier when the Member for Hong Lim supported it. Mr Deputy Speaker, it will be recalled that even though both these speakers strongly condemn the P.A.P.'s White Paper, the Prime Minister was so happy. The answer to the Prime Minister's happiness is very simple. The Prime Minister knows that these two Parties have fallen into the P.A.P. propaganda trap and are now unwittingly confusing the people on this issue. We in the Barisan Sosialis are more aware of the cunning of the Prime Minister and his treacherous tactics. We in the Barisan Sosialis are not going to fall into the P.A.P. propaganda trap. Sir, as far as Singapore is concerned, merger and Malaysia mean one and the same thing. That is, the P.A.P.'s so-called merger. We have very clearly stated our attitude to this so-called merger arrangement in this Assembly. In short, we reject the proposals made by the P.A.P. Government and we are certain that the people share our views. The question before the House is not one that involves the mere selection of appropriate words. We are not arguing over the niceties of words and phrases in themselves. Therefore, whether the word "plan" is replaced by the word "motion", or what have you, it will not affect one wee bit the Malaysia that is intended to be put into practice. The Member for Anson has moved an amendment. In our view, that amendment does not change the form and content of the Malaysia that will materialise after it comes into being. Sir, I must say that we are not interested in what Malaysia is going to look like on paper.

Order. Will the Serjeant-at-Arms see that silence is maintained in the Gallery.

As practical people, we are more concerned with what Malaysia actually means in practice to our people. As everybody has agreed, Malaysia in practice means the P.A.P. type of merger, the White Paper that was debated in this Assembly for 13 days. Therefore, I tell the United People's Party and the Workers' Party that it is useless for any one to close his eyes to reality and say, "I oppose the P.A.P. merger, but I support Tunku's Malaysia." We in the Barisan Sosialis do not want to participate in amending the motion because, to us, it is not going to change the material form of Malaysia in practice. Therefore, Sir, in the voting on the amendment, we shall abstain, and we shall vote against the motion before the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we see it, those who reject the White Paper must logically oppose this motion. There is no alternative. The concept of Malaysia should not be confused with the principle of the Tunku's Malaysia. The Tunku's Malaysia, as I said earlier, is not based on equality, democracy, mutual respect and self-determination. 7.45 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, during the debate on West Irian, the Member for Thomson sought to draw a distinction between the efforts of the nationalists in the Federation of Malaya and Singapore and the Borneo territories to create a sovereign independent State of the Federation of Malaysia and the struggle of the Indonesian people against Dutch colonialism. He said that whilst the nationalists of Indonesia could he praised because they were engaged in a struggle with the Dutch, their former colonial oppressors, the so-called nationalists in our territories, were entering into collusive arrangements with the British for the purpose of achieving their dishonourable aims. In the course of this debate this evening he has also made the same charge. Sir, there may be many in the Barisan Sosialis who may have good cause to fear the policies of the Federation Government in internal security matters. The Member for Thomson can talk till the cows come home, but he will never be able to convince even a schoolboy that the Federation of Malaya is not a truly nationalist State with a nationalist Government in control. It does not matter what he thinks about the Tunku and his Government. He may say that the Tunku has a Right-wing Government in the Federation.

That is what the Tunku has.

But he cannot deny that the Tunku heads a truly nationalist Government in the Federation. Can anyone who takes this view of the united efforts of the nationalists in the Federation of Malaya to give a helping hand to their kith and kin in territories still now under colonial rule to attain their freedom by integration with the sovereign independent State of the Federation of Malaya, ever be believed when he claims that he is a Malayan nationalist at heart? Does the Member for Thomson suggest that the nationalist Government in control of the Federation of Malaya would ever want to enter into collusive arrangements with a colonial power, under whom the members of their Government have suffered in the past, to take over colonial possessions of the colonial power for the purpose of perpetuating colonial rule under a new form? Does he also suggest that any self-respecting nationalists in the territories now under colonial subjection would ever agree to trade one form of colonial subjection for another? Only Communists who fear the nationalists make such baseless charges to smear the nationalists. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson considers the Malaysian proposals to be a diabolical plot by the British and their colonial stooges to deny the peoples of Singapore, Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak of their right to self-determination and freedom. He said the Malaysian idea was a threat to Indonesia. He also said that the idea of Malaysia was not new because the anti-colonial fighters of 1945 had mooted the idea of a Greater Indonesia which would include these territories. Would he date to say in this House that he prefers a merger of these territories with Indonesia to a merger of these territories with the Federation of Malaya? Why does he talk in riddles? We still have freedom of speech in this House. He should have the courage to say what he really wants to say. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown said in this House that 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 people of Singapore, Sabah, Borneo and Sarawak, but, on the contrary, is going to spread reaction, injustice, inequality and disunity among these peoples. It is the same voice which gives expression to such feelings of great despair which has also accused us of having failed in our duty to the people of Singapore in not having made uncompromising demands for complete merger and with internal security in the hands of the Government of the Federation of Malaya. In this House I have listened to a lot of double-talk from Members of the Barisan Sosialis opposite, but none of the double-talk I have listened to so far can equal this in sheer impudence. "Let it be quite clearly understood," said the Member for Queens-town, "that we do not object to the Malaysia concept as a concept." What he was not bold enough to say during the merger debate was that the Members of the Barisan Sosialis believe in merger also as a concept. But that would have been letting the cat out of the bag. Let us always be honest with ourselves and with the people whom we claim to represent. The trouble with Members of the Barisan Sosialis is that they always suffer from a loss of memory. They have forgotten the stand of the six trade unionists on the merger issue. The six trade unionists who control the Barisan Sosialis have publicly stated that they want not independence, not freedom from colonial domination, but self-government with local autonomy in internal security matters. Then again, Sir, when the Tunku made it quite clear that if there was no Malaysia there would be no merger. Members of the Barisan Sosialis began to talk about their loose confederation of independent States with local autonomy in internal security matters. This also they have now quite conveniently forgotten. As the idea of Malaysia begins to emerge in practical form, the leaders of the Ban-san, who were quite content to see Singapore remain a British Colony, have now assumed the role of anti-colonial fighters. They now say they disapprove of the Malaysia proposal because it would bring injustice, inequality, disunity, and a loss of freedom. Sir, honest men do not chop and change with such agility and with such a lack of grace when they publicly take a stand on any public issue. If they make a stand at all, they stick to it to the end. All these posturings have been forced upon the Members of the Barisan Sosialis because they are trying to conceal the truth which they fear, that if Malaysia takes shape, it will not be the people of Singapore who will be in danger of losing their civic rights or any of the economic advantages which they at present enjoy, but it will be the real leaders of the Barisan Sosialis who are not in this Assembly and their stooges in this Assembly who would find themselves in a position of dire peril. The Member for Changi has expressed great concern at the fact that on this motion the Members of the Barisan Sosialis stand alone, having parted company with the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim. Those who pretend to be nationalists and, at the same time, try to frustrate the aspirations of all true nationalists should not have any reason to complain if they find themselves in this very awkward position. We as nationalists unequivocably support the motion before the House and deplore the insincerity of the anti-nationalist attitude adopted by the real leaders of the Barisan Sosialis outside this House and their dupes in this House on the Malaysia issue. 7.55 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion before the House, as far as I can understand it, merely seeks from the House approval in principle of the concept of Malaysia. En understanding the debate that has now ensued on this motion, which has now lasted two days, it is important to focus the discussion on this motion in relation to the debate that took place on the motion for merger with the Federation. In that motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis, who were the principal opponents of that particular motion, argued that they accepted the concept of merger with the Federation, but objected to the particular form in which the merger was proposed. Their principal objection to the form was in the citizenship proposal which the Tunku had suggested as the maximum he could concede to the State of Singapore. At the same time, the Barisan Sosialis also made it quite clear that if the Tunku was prepared to accept Singapore as the twelfth State, they would support the motion then before the House wholeheartedly. At that time, the argument was put forward that if the Tunku had offered Singapore the same terms which he was then offering to the Bornean territories - the Tunku had said that he would take in the three Borneo territories as the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth States - they, the Barisan, said in no uncertain terms that they would support the proposals wholeheartedly. So that, at that time, the argument, as I understood it, emanating from the Barisan Sosialis was that they supported the whole idea, conception and plan put forward by the Tunku for Malaysia. The only point on which the Barisan Sosialis did not agree with the Tunku was that the citizenship proposals for Singapore were inferior to the citizenship proposals of the Bornean territories, and, therefore, they opposed it. Therefore, on the basis of that debate. I am entitled to assume that at that particular juncture, there was no suggestion that the people of Borneo should be consulted, that there should be elections in Borneo. At that time, there was no such suggestion. If the Tunku had then said, "You Singapore come in as the twelfth State; the three Bornean territories come in as the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth States, then I think, according to the propositions put forward by the Barisan Sosialis at that time, the whole House would have agreed on the concept of Malaysia, and agreed in principle to Malaysia and the plan for Malaysia -

Order. Moment of interruption.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn. "-[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.