Hansard, 1962-01-29

The following Questions stood in the name of Mr David Marshall:-

1. To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information (a) as to the storing of nuclear bombs, and (b) the erection of rocket sites, within the State of Singapore.

2. To ask the Minister for Finance whether be would (a) name the Members of the Committee investigating the question of equal pay for women, and (b) indicate when the Committee commenced investigations and when it anticipates finalising its report.

3. To ask the Minister for Education whether, in the light of the Government's Merger proposals, he will consider finalising at an early date the status of Nanyang University and its relationship with Government.

The Member for Anson not being here, the Prime Minister and the other Minister concerned will no doubt send copies of their answers to the Clerk. The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin) rose -

Is it a Ministerial Statement?

Yes, Sir, if I may, in lieu of oral question No. 3, because of public interest, make a Ministerial statement.

The Minister is entitled to make a Ministerial statement. I am just wondering whether the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance would also like to do the same. I do not know. Before I call upon the -

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are ready to oblige the Member for Anson even in his absence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no knowledge of any information as to storing of nuclear bombs and the erection of rocket sites within the State of Singapore. As Members are aware, defence and external affairs are matters reserved to the British Government under our Constitution, and so it will continue to be if the Communists' anti-colonial struggle through the Barisan Sosialis for full internal self-government without the Internal Security Council were to be accepted by this House. However, after merger, defence and external affairs will be in the hands of the Government of the Federation of Malaysia, and the elected government of the people of Malaysia can decide what is in the best defence interests of Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper on Merger setting out the Heads of Agreement between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore (Command Paper 33 of 1961) which was passed, without dissent, by the Legislative Assembly on 6th December, 1961, allows for local autonomy in education for Singapore, and therefore the position of Nanyang University is not in any way affected by the merger proposals. The Member for Anson is doubtless aware that under the Barisan Sosialis proposal for the so-called "complete merger", which he supports, the Singapore Government must treat Nanyang University in the same manner as the Federation Government does. If education is not a subject of local autonomy, there will be no question of recognising Nanyang University or doing anything to assist it until it conforms to the national education policy. Even the bursaries we now pay to Singapore students at Nanyang University will have to cease. I find it difficult to reconcile the Member for Anson's apparent concern for Nanyang University with his support for a type of merger which means Nanyang University will have to comply with the Rahman Talib Report or not to be supported at all and so upset Chinese educationists in general. On 31st October, 1961, in the Speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, column 22, mention was made of Nanyang University in the following words:- `The Government is as anxious as the founders of Nanyang University that the University should be reorganised. Towards this end, a liaison committee comprising representatives of the Government and the University held several meetings last year to discuss ways and means of implementing the recommendations made by the Nanyang University Review Committee. Although no agreement has been reached by the liaison committee, nonetheless the Government is always ready to negotiate and discuss this matter. There are hopes that this problem will be solved in the coming year.' On 27th November last, at a dinner given by the Prime Minister to the President and 9 members of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce which included Mr Tan Lark Sye, discussions were held on the arrangements for local autonomy on education and labour, trade and commerce, language and citizenship. The Prime Minister then suggested to Mr Tan that there should be agreement between the present Council of Nanyang University and the Ministry of Education as soon as possible before July or August 1962 so that provisions could be included in the budget for 1963. Mr Tan Lark Sye suggested, with the other members of the Chamber of Commerce present agreeing, that the matter could be left to informal discussions between a member of the Chamber present who was named, and Mr Lee Khoon Choy, my Parliamentary Secretary, who was also a Government representative in the Liaison Committee which carried out discussions with the Nanyang University Council in 1960. One of the outstanding matters before agreement can be reached is the question of representation in the new University Council. The Government stand is that the balance of representation in the Council would and should leave academic policy decisions with the academicians and teachers in the University, whereas the proposals of the present Nanyang University authorities meant that all policy decisions both academic and otherwise should be with the merchants who first sponsored the University. The Government was and is of the view that, although the public-spiritedness and interest in education of our Chinese merchants deserve praise for having helped to create Nanyang University, merchants and businessmen are not necessarily the best qualified people to decide academic and educational matters involved in the running of the University. The Government is prepared to discuss all details, including annual grants by the Government to Nanyang University, in accordance with the principles of the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee's Report. In this connection, Dr Gwee Ah Leng has referred me to reports published in both the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh dated 27th January, 1962, attributed to Mr Tan Lark Sye at a dinner speech of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce held at the Ee Ho Hean Club on 26th. January in which Mr Tan alleged that Dr Gwee had to amend his report three times because the Government was not satisfied with it. Dr Gwee informed me that he had written to Mr Tan Lark Sye by registered post, asking him to correct this unfounded statement. With Dr Gwee's permission, I wish to table a photostat copy of his letter in Chinese. for information of the House. If you will permit me, Sir, to read the English translation which goes as follows:- 27th January, 1962. `Chairman Tan, I have read in a report in the Nanyang Siang Pau of 27th instant of your speech on Nanyang University at the dinner in Ee Ho Hean Club. There is some misunderstanding which I would like to clarify. The amendments to the draft report were necessary to arrive at a Unanimous decision. It is not as you say because the Government was not satisfied with it. As far as I can remember I have never expressed to you my regrets in this matter as far as the Nanyang University is concerned. I am not concerned with this personally, but I think the public should not be confused. That is why I have raised this matter and hope appropriate steps will be taken to correct this. Sd. Dr Gwee Ah Leng.' Photostat copy of Dr Gwee Ah Leng's letter to Mr Tan Lark Sye handed in.

2.43 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 State of Singapore and Brunei, and the territories of Sarawak and North Borneo.". Since which amendments have been proposed, 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." As has been said before, the debate may range over both amendments and the Original Question, as amended. 2.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose on Friday evening, I had just addressed it for about three or four minutes. Perhaps, Sir, if you will allow me to recapitulate shortly what I had mentioned to the House in a few words and then proceed from there, so that my speech might then he received in proper perspective. When the first motion on merger with the Federation was discussed. I got the impression, as my colleagues also did, that so far as the Barisan Sosialis were concerned, they were all for the Malaysian concept as outlined by the Tunku. In fact, the whole outcry from the Barisan Sosialis side against the Tunku, insofar as Singapore was concerned, was that Singapore was not being treated in the same way that the Borneo territories were being treated. It appeared from their side that the Tunku had offered to bring in the three Borneo territories as three additional States into the Federation on an equal footing, shall we say, with Johore or Selangor or with any other State in the Federation. They also said that if only the Tunku made all the Singapore citizens Federal citizens, they would be quite happy to go in as the twelfth State. In fact, the whole outcry against the Tunku was that Singapore would not be made the twelfth State. Now if that is the correct appreciation of the main line on which the Barisan opposed the merger proposals, I, at the moment, do not understand the line taken by them on the Malaysia motion. I believe we started to debate the motion on merger with the Federation on 17th November last year which lasted for two or three weeks. But since then, it would appear that the point of attack has changed. The point of attack now is not about the Borneo territories coming in as the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth States. It is that they are not being allowed to have a say in whether they should be part of Malaysia or whether they should stay out; whether or not the first step in the Malaysia proposals should not be independence for each of these territories, then an understanding between the three of them, and finally their coming into the Malaysia proposals after that. Therefore, it seems fairly clear now - to me anyway, Mr Speaker - that there has been a change of front insofar as the Barisan Sosialis are concerned on Malaysia. I got the impression, from the first debate, that they were all for Malaysia. But that what is objectionable in the Malaysia proposals was the status that was being given to Singapore and that Singapore citizens were going to become second-class citizens. Now the point of attack is something quite different. I was listening to a number of Barisan Sosialis Members speaking in the hope that they would explain to the House why this change of attitude had taken place since the conclusion of the debate on the merger with the Federation motion and the commencement of this debate on the Malaysia motion. I think it was the Minister for Culture who suggested to the Barisan Sosialis that the change of front was because the Barisan Sosialis are not following a line of their own, and that their line is being dictated to them by forces outside Singapore and forces with which Singapore should not be concerned at all. It has since been denied by the Barisan that that is so. But the facts point to this, that during the course of the West Irian debate, the Member for Thomson said that Malaysia is an anti-Indonesian move. That idea was not mentioned during the debate on the original motion on merger with the Federation. Although Malaysia had been touched upon - not at length, of course, Mr Speaker, Sir; the principle of it had been touched upon in the first debate - there was never any suggestion by any of the speakers on the Barisan side that Malaysia was an anti-Indonesian move. Now I, for myself, fail to understand how the Barisan Sosialis - particularly the Member for Thomson - could have said that it was an anti-Indonesian move when my understanding of the Malaysia proposals was that it had the blessing of the Indonesian Government. I believe the Foreign Minister of Indonesia has stated in no uncertain terms that insofar as the Malaysia proposals are concerned, Indonesia has no objections. Now if that is the attitude of the Indonesian Government, Mr Speaker, Sir, where then does the Member for Thomson get the idea that this is an anti-Indonesian move? It seems to me that there is something in what the Minister for Culture has been accusing the Barisan of, that this new line of the Barisan Sosialis, that this is an anti-Indonesian move, is a line which is being dictated from somebody outside Singapore and not connected with the Indonesian Government as a Government. In view of the article which appeared sometime ago in the Straits Tunes and which set out the line of the Communist Party in Indonesia, and in view of the statement made by the Member for Thomson subsequent to that, I get the impression - unless they are going to deny it with rational statement that that is not so - that they are following the line set by the Communist Party in Indonesia. An hon. Member: Nonsense.

I hope for the sake of Singapore that it is nonsense. I was waiting for the Member for Thomson, when he made his speech on Friday evening, to deny that statement. You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when the Member for Anson moved his amendment, he did call upon the Member for Thomson to give some explanation for that statement. I thought the Member for Thomson in his speech would make some reference to that and try to explain it, because I think it is important for the people of Singapore to know whether this is an anti-Indonesian move or not. If the Indonesian Government says that it is not an anti-Indonesian move, why then are the Barisan Sosialis worried about it? Surely it is the people of Singapore who elected them and not the people of Indonesia. Our main interest is to find out first whether the Malaysia proposals are something good for Singapore. After that we should consider whether it is good for the Bornean territories or whether it is good for the Federation. I would have thought that, as elected representatives of the people of Singapore, our first duty was to the people of Singapore, afterwards to the Federation, and afterwards to the Borneo territories, and last of all to Indonesia. But the point of attack in the Malaysia debate seems to me that the Barisan Sosialis are more interested than the people of Singapore are in what the Communist Party in Indonesia think about the Malaysia proposals. They are open to that criticism because of the statements made by the Member for Thomson and because he has not taken the trouble to deny it or explain it in any way to this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to put this proposition to the Barisan Sosialis and what their attitude would be on it. Sir, the Tunku has said that he is not going to have Singapore enter the Federation unless and until the three Bornean territories come in at the same time. He has said that most categorically, and he has not departed one iota from that statement. But the Tunku has not said that if the three Borneo territories agree to go with the Federation and become part of the Federation, he will not take them without Singapore. So there is this possibility that if the Borneo territories agree to become part of the Federation as the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth States, and if we lost on the referendum which God forbid them - we might reach a position where the three States in Borneo become part of the Federation - if not as the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth States, then at least on some other arrangement with the Federation - and with Singapore staying out of this arrangement as an active opponent of the Malaysian concept. If that happened, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask my friends in the Barisan Sosialis to think of the pretty pickle Singapore would find itself in. And if there is no merger or close understanding or anything else with the Federation as a result of a refusal on the referendum, I think that slowly but surely the pressure on Singapore will be applied and it will find itself isolated. In those circumstances, what solution has the Barisan Sosialis for Singapore? Do we then say that we get the Internal Security Council away from the British and the Federation, keep internal security with the Singapore Government, and allow the British to continue to run the foreign affairs and defence of Singapore? Is that a practical possibility, Mr Speaker, Sir? Do they know whether the British will agree to that? It is all very well saying, "Let the British defend us. Let the British run our foreign affairs." But can the Barisan Sosialis give any assurance to the House that, under the conditions which I have just outlined to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the British will continue to remain here? I do not think the British will. If the British are not going to remain here, who then are going to look after our foreign affairs and defence? An hon. Member: The P.K.I.

I do not think the Indonesians want to be mixed up with us. Now where do you go from there, Mr Speaker, Sir? [Interruption] No, Mr Speaker, the whole thing is impossible. And when one analyses the arguments put forward by the Barisan Sosialis on the merger proposals with the Federation, and one applies the basis of those arguments to the arguments which they use on these Malaysia proposals, they conflict and cannot be reconciled. Sir, one gets the idea, therefore, that they are not being true to themselves in their arguments on this issue that is if they had been true to themselves in their arguments on the debate on the merger proposals. Now if there is this falsity of arguments on these two issues, I think one must find out what has caused this falsity of arguments. I think the Minister for Culture has a point when he urges upon the House that the reason for the difficulties in which the Barisan Sosialis find themselves at the moment is not that they are following a line of their own, but that they are following a line which someone else is setting for them. The Minister for Culture is suggesting to them that it is being sent by the Communist Party in Indonesia. Unless I hear anything further on this from the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, I myself will be inclined to agree with the Minister for Culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, a further attack was made on the Tunku regarding the Commission that was being set up, that he was doing this without consulting the Borneo people. Sir, surely the whole point of the Commission is to ascertain the views of the people in the three territories of Borneo. I take it the Commission will sit in each of these three territories. The Prime Minister knows more about this than he would probably tell the House. But what I expect, and what would be the normal procedure, would be that the Commission goes from territory to territory ascertaining the views of the people of the Borneo territories and, on those views, they will present the Commission's Report. So I really do not understand why the Barisan Sosialis should say that the Tunku is trying to rig the Commission in order that it might give him a favourable verdict. What the Tunku has done, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that he has given the Bornean territories the maximum which Singapore is asking of him. Now if the Borneo territories do not want the maximum but they want something less, I feel certain the Tunku will accommodate them if that is the wish of the Borneo people. So what are the Barisan Sosialis worried about? Why do they talk about elections first? "Let us first have the three territories come in as one unit before we have a Malaysia merger." Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, anybody knows that those proposals, if carried out, will take at least another ten years. The Member for Cairnhill says more. Probably he is right, but I say at least ten years. Can we wait for another ten years? Can Singapore wait for another ten years? Speaking for Singapore. I say we cannot wait. I do not know about the Bornean territories. You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, when there was a Regional Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which you were Chairman, I urged upon the conference the necessity to get together quickly. That was sometime in July or August last year. I then urged upon the conference that the position of Singapore was such that it was Singapore that wished the getting together quicker than any other part of this area which is now being called Malaysia. So I say to Members of the Barisan Sosialis: let us look after our own interests first, and think of somebody else's afterwards. Our interests are such, economically, politically and every other way in which this Island is concerned, that the coming together with the Federation and the three Borneo territories is vital to our survival. Therefore, let us get on with it. Let the Bornean territories decide what is best' for them and let the Commission help them decide. Mr Speaker, it was curious that when the West Irian motion was being discussed - a matter which did not really concern the vital interests of Singapore - the P.A.P. Government, the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P. (who all originally started off in this House as P.A.P. Members) reached agreement on something which did not really concern Singapore. But on matters which vitally concern our existence they were fighting like cats and dogs, except for the U.P.P., of course, who agreed. But so far as the Barisan are concerned, they disagreed. I think we have reached a stage in this House where if the P.A.P. were to say something is white, the Barisan are going to say that it is black; and where the Barisan were to say it is yellow, the P.A.P. would say it is red. I think it is a great pity we have reached this stage on a motion of national importance. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recollect another Barisan Sosialis Member saying, "We do not like this because this is something the P.A.P. has brought about." That is one of the reasons given. Now, is that a valid, substantial reason on a national issue such as this? It is the good fortune of the P.A.P. to be the Government of the country at a time in history when merger is becoming possible. But that is their good fortune and it is not due to them entirely. It is the historical sequence of events that is bringing merger about and it is their good fortune to be at the right place at the right time. Therefore, I tell my friends in the Barisan Sosialis: it is not a P.A.P. merger; it is not a P.A.P. Malaysia. It is Malaysia as we all think it should be; that all these five territories should come together. We have been told how we will be accepted into the Federation. The Tunku has told the Bornean territories that he will accept them as the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth States, if they do not want it, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Commission will say so together. Another point they make, Sir, is a very interesting one. They say they are not Communists. They say they are not interested in a Communist form of government. They say they Want democracy. When we in Singapore talk about democracy, we talk about the parliamentary form of democracy, not guided democracy or any other type of democracy. Now, one of the arguments that the Barisan Sosialis put forward against Malaysia is this: that the Alliance Government is a Right-wing government; that the Alliance Government is a reactionary government; that the Alliance Government is this, that, and the other. If the Barisan Sosialis genuinely believe in a democratic form of government, there will always be a Right and a Left. They are all on the Left, and the Alliance is on the Right. Because the Alliance is on the Right, and the people have put them in power, therefore, they are in power rightly. It seems to me. Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Barisan are not at all against Malaysia; really speaking, they want Malaysia. It appears to me that had the Socialist Front in the Federation been in power at the moment, there would not have been this 20-day debate over these two topics in this House. So what the Barisan are really saying is that they will only agree to a Malaysia or to a coming together with the Federation only when a Left-wing government is in power in the Federation. That seems to be the whole point of the attack. If they really believed in a parliamentary form of government, they should agree to what is right for this whole area, and after that convince the people that a Right-wing Government is not in the best interests of the whole area, and that it is a Left-wing government that will bring prosperity to this Island, to the Federation, and to the three Borneo territories. That is how they should do it if they were genuinely interested in a parliamentary form of democracy. But as they are not, it does appear to me that when they say, "We are democrats," they are merely giving lip service to it at the moment because they cannot do anything else now. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to touch on anything else on this debate. It has gone on for three or four days now. Everything that can be said about it has been said, and I do not wish to take up any more time of the House. But I do say this: that in this debate, let us think of Singapore first, and let us think of the Federation afterwards. Let us think of the three Borneo territories next, and let us forget Indonesia. 3.08 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir from the speeches given by Members of, the House over the last week, we discover three different stands on Malaysia. These three stands are as follows. First is the stand of the P.A.P. together with the Alliance. They are in support of the Malaysia concept as planned by the Federation Government. Second is that of the Barisan Sosialis. They oppose this Malaysia concept without any principles whatsoever. They are blindly opposing this Malaysia plan as brought up and suggested by the Federation of Malaya.

On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Ng Teng Kian resumed his seat.

The Member for Punggol says that the Barisan Sosialis are against the concept of Malaysia. In fact, we agree to the concept of Malaysia, but it is the plan that we are against.

Make up your mind.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know theories which are always their own theories. I do not want to argue with them further in this respect. So all the unprincipled opposition to the concept of Malaysia and the plan as proposed by the Federation Government is the second stand. The third stand is that of the U.P.P. together with the Workers' Party in support of the Malaysia concept but against the Malaysia plan as proposed by the Federation Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, geographically, economically, culturally, Singapore, and Malaya together with the Borneo territories belong to the same family, just the same as its peoples. The peoples have common cultures, common races and use a common currency. They have similar religions, they have a common mode of life, and their separation has been brought about as the result of colonial rule. This separation of the peoples in these five territories is a result of the divide-and-rule policy of the colonialists. By this policy, the colonialists could exploit the peoples of these five territories, and, therefore, in this pant of the world, when colonialism is dying out, we can say that the peoples of the five territories must gel together and rally under one flag to oppose their common enemy. In this way we will be able to go forward with history. Malaysia is the greatest producer of rubber and tin in the world. In Borneo there is a great deal of natural resources waiting for the people to tap. In Singapore we have many trained personnel and skilled workers. In addition, we have a very good port and harbour facilities. In fact, we are the fifth great port in the world. If the peoples in the five territories can unite together, then they will be able to make full use of their natural resources and their skilled labour in order to bring about a better future for the 10 million people living in this area. That is why we of the U.P.P. are in support of the Malaysia concept, because this should be the natural development for this area. Unfortunately, it is disappointing for us to note that during the debate on Malaysia in this House and in the Federation Parliament, there was opposition to the concept of Malaysia from the Barisan Sosialis and the P.M.I.P. We and the P.A.P. are quite different in our stands in this respect. Although we support the Malaysia concept, we are against the plan of the Federation of Malaya. We are opposed to the merger proposals in the White Paper because we believe that the peoples of the five territories should have a common citizenship so that they will be able to visit one another freely and they will also be able to live in the same family. Moreover, they can look for jobs in any of the five territories without any restrictions. Mr Speaker. Sir, last Thursday, I read in the newspapers a report of the speech made by the Member for Changi in which he criticised the U.P.P. for giving support to the P.A.P.'s motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very serious criticism. I do not understand on what basis our friends in the Barisan Sosialis made the statement that we are assisting the P.A.P. in deceiving the people of Singapore. We can proudly tell the world that when my colleague, the Member for Hong Lim, left this House and then reentered it again when he was re-elected, he went in on a majority of about 4,000 votes from the people. So when the Barisan Sosialis Members, without principles, oppose the Malaysia concept, we cannot but feel very dissatisfied with their attitude. We thank them, of course, for reminding us not to fall into the trap of the P.A.P. But I will tell the Barisan Sosialis Members that the political stand of the U.P.P. cannot be influenced by anybody at all. It is because of the firm political stand of the U.P.P. that we were able to campaign and win our struggle with the P.A.P. it is because of our firm political stand that we were able to survive in the Hong Lim by-election. It is also because of our firm political stand that we are now unlike the P.A.P. leadership. We left the P.A.P. because we believe in our political stand. We are not like the Members of the Barisan Sosialis who only left the P.A.P. at a time when the P.A.P. ship was about to sink. The Hong Lim Resolutions were brought out because of our stand. The Members of the U.P.P. never change their political stand as other political opportunists do. During the Hong Lim by-election, the people in the Barisan Sosialis praised our Prime Minister. But all of a sudden, and almost overnight, they changed their stand. They now call themselves the friends and heroes of the people. I believe that if victory in the by-election had gone to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then these people in the Barisan Sosialis would have remained in the P.A.P. Government even up till now. They would still have been with Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the Malaysia concept, I beg your permission to draw an analogy. For example, if you intend to have only two children, and because of failure in birth control, you have a third child, then -

Order. I think the Speaker would far rather prefer that the simile be applied to somebody else!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in that case, I shall give an example of another person. Let us suppose that a person wants to have only two children. But unfortunately because the birth-control is not effective, he has a third child. In that event, should he then give away the third child together with the first two? In a similar way, support for the Malaysia concept is just like the analogy of having two children. The Barisan Sosialis say they want to have two children. But when they are going to have a third child, they say the two children already born should be given away, together with the unwanted third child. Let me remind them that the Malaysia concept is one thing, but the Malaysia plan is quite another thing. We must see clearly the object of our opposition and our objections. When the Member for Anson moved an amendment to the original motion, what he wanted to do was to ask the House to support unanimously the concept of Malaysia. His attitude is correct. That is why he has our support. But what we heard from the Barisan is the concept of Greater Malaysia which would include Indonesia, Singapore, the Borneo territories and the Federation. We never deny that Indonesia is our friend and a good neighbour. We should always be friendly towards Indonesia and regard it as our own brother. To he friendly is one thing, but to merge with Indonesia is another thing. China and Russia are just like America and Britain. They are very friendly. But it does not mean that two countries should merge. Although politically, economically and culturally Indonesia has many things in common with us, there are some differences. Therefore, we cannot merge with Indonesia. Let me tell my Barisan friends again that we cannot by ourselves bring prosperity to Singapore, and we hope that they will not bring disaster to Singapore. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Malaysia offers to the people of Singapore. Sarawak, Borneo. Brunei and Malaya a great future, a future full of opportunities and immense potentialities. Therefore, it is desirable and vital that these opportunities should not be lost and that the creation of Malaysia be realised without delay. When established, Malaysia will be a stabilising force in South-East Asia. We in Singapore are very fortunate to occupy an advantageous position, and we will have an important role to play in the future of Malaysia. The main opposition to the concept of Malaysia within and outside these five territories has been Communist-inspired. In Singapore and here in this Chamber, the Barisan Sosialis have championed the Communist cause. They say that Malaysia is British-sponsored and supported by the Tunku. What is wrong with it? They say it is anti-Indonesia and is detrimental to the advancement of our people. The truth is that Malaysia will be a setback to the Communists. It is for this reason that they and the Barisan Sosialis have opposed it bitterly for their own selfish interest. When Malaysia is firmly established, the Communists and their followers will have no place and no chance to advance their interest and ideology. Members of the Barisan Sosialis have repeatedly criticised the Government Front Benches for supporting merger and Malaysia, saying that they do so in order to satisfy their own interest, which is to remain in power. For the benefit of everyone, let me state clearly here that none of the 26 P.A.P. Members who have remained loyal to the people who have elected them to this Chamber would wish to remain here longer than is necessary, and for no other reason than our firm conviction that Malaysia is in the interest of our people. We would like to see merger and Malaysia through to a successful conclusion. It is our duty to see that mischievous people like the Barisan Sosialis do not have the chance to wreck it. The arguments of Members of the Barisan Sosialis are most childish and absurd. They accuse the Prime Minister and other Ministers of wanting to remain in power, and that is the reason why they support merger and Malaysia. Why should the Prime Minister and other Ministers face all the unpleasantness created by the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist masters just to support merger and Malaysia? If it is true that they are power crazy, would they not take the easiest way out like the 13 Members who have defected and formed the Barisan Sosialis, and succumb to the demands of the six trade unionists? Then all would be well. Then there would be no Barisan Sosialis today and the 13 Members would not have crossed the Floor. Fortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the Ministerial Front Benches are not men made of straw who would break so easily. The Barisan Sosialis and their Communist masters oppose Malaysia. But what is their alternative? They say, let the peoples of the three Borneo territories have self-determination first and then they can decide for themselves. In the meantime, the Communists can advance their ideology and interests in these territories. We can appreciate and understand the anxiety of the peoples in the Borneo territories in wanting time to make up their minds and so prepare themselves for the role they have to play in Malaysia. To those of us who have been over to the Borneo territories, we know that the peoples there are not accustomed to the fast pace we are used to here. But I am sure they do not realise the danger awaiting them. It is on this pretext that the Communists have strongly championed the cause of self-determination for their own selfish interests. Mr Speaker, Sir, the ordinary man in the street or in the coffee-shop would like to know what merger and Malaysia mean. Do these affect their lives and their livelihood? Through Malaysia the peoples of these five territories will be integrated into one common political unit and share a common destiny. We have strong historical, cultural and economic ties which make us fit in as a group. When the people cried for merdeka, the British cunningly separated us in their own interests. The time has now come for us to reunite into one political unit for the advancement of our own peoples. Malaysia will accelerate the economic and rural development and educational advancement of the Borneo territories. Most of our public services are at present operated on a Pan Malayan/Borneo basis, the agreements on which will have to be concluded with the consent of all five Governments. With Malaysia under a strong Central Government, this will help to improve and expand public utility services. Travel facilities can be made easier. The Barisan Sosialis say that Malaysia is neo-colonialism and will not give the people economic freedom. Economic freedom can only be successfully achieved after achieving political freedom through the democratic socialist system by a continuous struggle against those with economic power and without dislocating the economy of the people. Do the Barisan Sosialis believe in the democratic socialist system, or are they advocating a Communist system for Malaysia? Mr Speaker, Sir, Malaysia is a constructive approach to the unity and well-being of our peoples. I fully endorse it. 3.35 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in debating the Greater Malaysia Plan, my Party's Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, Comrade Lee Siew Choh, has clearly analysed the advantages and disadvantages of the Plan for the people. After the analysis we have made, what he has said is true. This Plan will not be beneficial to the people of Singapore. We have dealt a heavy blow to the P.A.P. From speeches made by the Ministers, we can see that they are not analysing the problem of Greater Malaysia. They have always accused us, the Barisan Sosialis, of being Communist-inspired and stooges of the Communists. So they are not analysing the problems, hut are only accusing us. This method is meant to confuse and mislead the people on this issue and to silence them. Perhaps the P.A.P. leadership has forgotten, that in 1948, the colonial government used the same tactics of abusing and criticising those who opposed colonial rule. They even arrested the people. What was the result? They could not suppress the people of Singapore forever. As a result, there came into being the Rendel Constitution. We are not forgetful. Under the Rendel Constitution, the puppet government of Lim Yew Hock used the same tactics and methods to criticise their political opponents and suppress the progressive organisations. They came to a very disastrous end. The P.A.P. leadership are using the same tactics to accuse us of many things, but the people will not believe them. At every street corner in Singapore, we see the P.A.P. are putting up bunting and posters for Malaysia Week. They are carrying out a propaganda campaign to stir up the people and win them over to their side. The P.A.P. have been carrying out this line of propaganda for quite some time. They are using this as a political panacea to save their political future. They are now putting up bunting and decorations in every street and every building in conjunction with Malaysia Week, thinking that they can make the people believe that the future Malaysia will be as beautiful as these decorations. They hope the people can be trapped by all this outward manifestation and propaganda. If this Malaysia Plan is in the interest of the people, it needs no propaganda to sell it. A plan that is in the interest of the people and is good for the welfare of the State needs no slogans, dramas and stage plays to sell it. These things are only a waste of time, energy and money. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can all remember that the Malaysia concept was first mooted by the progressive Left-wing people. The original Malaysia concept included Malaya, Singapore, the Borncan territories, Indonesia and the Philippines. Its purpose was to oppose Western colonial exploitation and rule in this area, to strengthen and consolidate the people of South-East Asia against colonial rule and to promote a world-wide anti-colonial movement, so as to contribute part of its strength to the world movement against colonialism. But all this could not be achieved under the present Malaysia Plan, which is in the interest of the colonialists. This Malaysia Plan will consolidate the colonial forces and spread the Right- wing reactionary influence in these five territories in order to suppress the anti-colonial movement and struggle. At the same time, the Right-wing colonial forces, under the protection of the colonialists, will be able to continue their control of these five territories, so that the colonial master can hide behind the Right-wing stooges and direct them to continue to exploit the people of these territories and to continue their colonial rule in this area. Thus the British colonialists can have their vested interests in this area preserved. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the beginning of this year, the anti-colonial forces are mounting in these territories. For example, the people have been fighting for the liberation of West Irian and Goa. This shows the mounting force of anti-colonialism. This also shows that the people under colonial rule want to free themselves. We can see that even in territories like Brunei and Sarawak the forces of anti-colonialism are still increasing. Every day the anti-colonial movement is gaining momentum and they are demanding a national referendum on self-determination. But the colonialists, fearing that they may fail in the general elections and the national referendum, have postponed these events in order to perpetuate their rule. We can clearly see from these facts that the Greater Malaysia Plan does not aim at promoting the interests of the people of the five territories. In fact, this Plan aims at frustrating the anti-colonial movement in the three territories in Borneo. If this Plan is really intended to bring about prosperity and to promote the interest of the people in the five territories of this region, the rulers must first let the people in the three territories in Borneo have independence before they can bring about the Malaysia Plan. If this Plan is to be put into practice quietly and handed to a Right-wing Government as a means of ruling the people in the five territories in the interest of the colonialists, then it will not be in the interest of the people in the five territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot forget that the Prime Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, has said that under the Greater Malaysia Plan, Singapore will only be taken in on a partnership basis. As far as immigration is concerned, there will be restrictions in the five territories. But the P.A.P. have been boasting that Malaysia will look after the interest of the 10 million people in these territories and that it will be a solution to all the problems of the people in this region. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government is now launching an intensive propaganda campaign to deceive the people on the question of Malaysia. When Malaysia is realised, unemployed people in Singapore will not be allowed to migrate to the Borneo territories to seek jobs. So how can the Malaysia Plan solve the unemployment problem in Singapore'? The P.A.P. say that they can do so, but it is a lie. Again, there is no difference whatsoever between the Malaysia Plan and the merger proposals as contained in the White Paper. So we say that this Malaysia Plan is impractical and we will not support it. 3.51 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, after the Second World War, we notice two political trends: (1) colonies gradually gain independence from imperial rule, and (2) small countries tend to unite together in order to survive and prosper. This trend of countries coming together is found in the West Indies and in Africa. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people who live in the territories comprising Malaysia have much in common. The concept of Malaysia is a natural expansion of the concept of a united Malaya with the three Borneo territories. My Party, the United People's Party, supports the concept of Malaysia as the United People's Party supports the concept of a united Malaya. Unfortunately, the Federation Government's Malaysia Plan would not bring about a true and reunited Malaysia as Singapore would only be admitted on a so-called partnership basis. In order to create a true Malaysia, two basic conditions must be observed: firstly, there must be one common citizenship, and, secondly, there must be freedom of travel and residence within all the 15 States comprising Malaysia. We oppose the Plan put forward by the Federation Government because it is against these two basic conditions. In short, we support the concept of Malaysia, but we are opposed to the Federation Plan because it would not bring about a true Malaysia. Mr Speaker, Sir, a true Malaysia will bring much benefit to the people of Singapore and will solve many of her economic problems. For more than a century, Singapore has been the heart of the territories which comprise Malaysia. A true Malaysia, when created, will therefore be in the best interest of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the original motion moved by the Prime Minister of Singapore asks the Assembly to support the Malaysia Plan of the Federation Government. The amendment suggested by the Member for Anson asks the Assembly to support the Malaysia concept instead of agreeing with the Plan. This Malaysia concept has been approved by all Parties in the Federal Parliament, including the P.P.P. and the Socialist Front, but has been opposed by the P.M.I.P. The P.M.I.P. wants the territories comprising Malaysia to be merged with Indonesia. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Singapore Legislative Assembly, it seems that all the Parties, except the Barisan Sosialis, support the Malaysia concept. The Barisan Sosialis claim that the U.P.P. and the Workers' Party have fallen into the propaganda trap of the P.A.P. and have helped the P.A.P. to deceive the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, since we fought the P.A.P. leadership from the days of the Hong Lim Resolutions, we have never on any occasion fallen into the P.A.P. trap. Neither have we helped the P.A.P. leadership to deceive the people. Sir, it was the Barisan Sosialis, as ex-P.A.P. Members, who as late as the polling day of the Hong Lim by-election helped the P.A.P. to deceive the people. They helped the P.A.P. in their false propaganda to deceive the people in the Legislative Assembly, in the meetings at the Hong Lim by-election and elsewhere. They sang the praises of the Prime Minister and flattered him as a democrat, socialist and a man of the masses. Within a few weeks after the Prime Minister's catastrophic defeat in Hong Lim, these same people, who claimed that the Prime Minister was a good, honest democrat and socialist, turned against him and started repeating the same things that we said. Instead of being collaborators, the Barisan Sosialis have assumed a new role. They have become the so-called champions of the people. Can the people trust these political weathercocks? Is it not a fact that these Barisan Assemblymen collaborated with the P.A.P. leadership for two years, enjoying life together? Is it necessary to quote what they said in Hong Lim? On the other hand, we in the U.P.P. do not change like these political weathercocks. We have fought the P.A.P. constantly and have not collaborated with them in deceiving the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Malaysia concept, it is the Barisan Sosialis who will fall into the P.A.P. trap. I remember not long ago how the Barisan Sosialis fell into the P.A.P. trap by supporting police action against students. They also fell into the P.A.P. trap by sending a delegate to the Malayan Solidarity Consultative Conference. The U.P.P. is opposed to the Malaysia Plan as distinct from the Malaysia concept. Also we would have nothing to do with the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Conference. Participation meant acceptance. Sir, why do the Barisan Sosialis often fall into the P.A.P. trap in this Assembly and elsewhere? One of the reasons is that they have no fixed political principles - just changing their stand like political weathercocks. From the speeches, it seems that the P.A.P. is prepared to accept the amendment of the Member for Anson because the Barisan Sosialis have decided to vote against the amended motion. The P.A.P.'s trap is to isolate the Barisan Sosialis from the national movement and, as is clearly seen, the Barisan Sosialis is plunging headlong into the P.A.P. trap. We in the U.P.P. have more principles and more experience in fighting the P.A.P. leadership, even during the time when they were at the height of their power and when there were some people who were prepared to compromise and collaborate with the mighty Prime Minister then in order to share the spoils and glory of power. Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the Malaysia concept. We oppose the plan put forward by the Federation Government because it will not create a true Malaysia. We also oppose merging with Indonesia, although we want to be friendly with the Indonesian people. But that is a different matter.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the day before yesterday, the Member for Changi said that the Member for Anson supported the stand on Greater Malaysia. He was not pleased with it. Let me ask the Member for Changi: "Who asked you to do this?" We must know this: during the Anson by-election, why should you betray the P.A.P.? Why should you leave us? You have betrayed the Party and gone to support another Party.

Order. The hon. Member must address the Speaker. I do not think he has the right to say that I have betrayed the P.A.P.

(In Mandarin): I am wrong. Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore there was chaos and disorder in this country. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the Barisan Sosialis. Many people outside this House say that if the Members of the Barisan Sosialis had not left the P.A.P., then there would have been stability and peace in this country. Just now the U.P.P. also asked why should they, the Barisan Sosialis, leave the P.A.P.? At that time they wanted to oppose the U.P.P. and now they want to oppose the P.A.P. Now, who has been playing games? Why should the Barisan Sosialis be political turn-coats? They have no political objectives, but are waverers so they could bring chaos and disorder to the people and the State. The people do not want to study and workers do not want to work. Whose fault is it? The Member for Anson supports the Government's Greater Malaysia Plan. But they say it is wrong to do so. Then why should they support the Member for Anson at the Anson by-election? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Barisan Sosialis should not be so obstinate in opposing the Government. I hope they could contribute concrete and constructive suggestions and not engage in a rambling debate in this House. I support merger between Singapore and the Federation and also the Malaysia Plan. Why should there be merger and why should there be a Malaysia Plan? We can see that taxi-drivers in Singapore cannot ply in the Federation. What is the reason for this? Graduates of Nanyang University cannot go to the Federation. The reason is that there is no merger. That is why we want merger. After merger we are members of the same family and we can travel freely in Malaya. But the Barisan Sosialis want to oppose merger. They say the people are not satisfied. Here and there in the streets and the coffee-shops people are accusing the Barisan Sosialis because they have taken the wrong path. What is politics? Politics means support by the people. But the people do not support the Barisan Sosialis. What is their reason for opposing merger and the Malaysia Plan? They are trying to fool the people. They are only looking after their own interests. That is why the people do not support them because they are thought to be arrogant and proud. They also try to create strikes here arid there. The people are not pleased with the Barisan Sosialis. That is why they do not want to support the Barisan Sosialis. They say that the Barisan Sosialis are doing things contrary to the interests of the people. The people have also asked the Barisan Sosialis not to place party politics above the interests of the people. They have also asked the Barisan to pay more attention to the interests of the people. In my opinion, after the realisation of Malaysia, all the five territories will enjoy greater economic benefits and the employment situation in all these territories will greatly improve. This will be a great help to the peoples. Therefore, we must make Malaysia a success. A few days ago a Member of the Barisan Sosialis said that we, the P.A.P., do not support Indonesia in their claim for West Irian. It is a strange accusation. We have already clearly declared in the newspapers and in this House that we support the Indonesian claim to West Irian. Yet this Member of the Barisan accused us of opposing Indonesia's liberation of West Irian. Is it not a lie when this Member said that we would not support Indonesia? I would stress again that we support Indonesia in their claim to West Irian, but we must not by doing so let West Irian be a battlefield. It will not be in the interests of anyone. We must not let it become a kind of sacrifice on the part of the Indonesian people. We have seen such a thing happening in the past. For instance, Communist China wanted to reclaim Formosa but could not declare a war because it was an international issue.

Order. The hon. Member is going back to the debate on West Irian. We have finished with that. He has lost his opportunity. In passing, he can mention it, but I think he is going into much too much details. All what he is saying now should have been said when West Irian was being debated.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only mentioned it in passing. But why should I mention it? It is because this has something to do with the present situation in our Party. It goes to show that all along our Party has been on the right lines. We are nationalists and all along we have been struggling against colonial domination and colonial interests. But they have accused us of being Right-wing people and supporting the colonialists. All this is not true. We have never done such a thing. They have also accused us of doing many other things. We have supported the Indonesians in their claim. All along we have been struggling along the right path. And we have the courage to pursue our party policies according to the democratic, socialist line. We resolutely oppose colonialism to the very bitter end. I hope that Members of the Barisan Sosialis will in future not try to accuse the P.A.P. of such things, such as Indonesia's claim to West Irian, which we have supported. However, I will not waste the time of the Assembly. 4.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as each day passes the Barisan Sosialis is exposing their true intentions. It is becoming very clear, Mr Speaker, why they oppose merger between Singapore and the Federation and the realisation of Malaysia, and why in an effort to break up merger and Malaya they are trying to create confusion among the people by falsehoods. The Barisan Sosialis have been accusing the P.A.P. of negotiating a sell-out merger. The Barisan Sosialis are also saying that Malaysia is also a sell-out of some kind to the British. But their antics at the Socialists Conference in Kuala Lumpur make it all too clear that it is the Barisan Sosialis which is trying to sell out the people of Singapore and the 10 million people of Malaya to the P.K.I., the Communists in Indonesia. First, they tried to sell out Singapore to the British colonialists. They know that merger with the Federation will bring independence to Singapore by ending British rule in Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis cannot deny this logic. Once there is merger, the British will have no say either in the domestic or foreign affairs of a United Malaya. But what did the anti-colonialists of the Barisan Sosialis do? They secretly went to see officials of the U.K. Commission and put forward a funny deal. They said they were prepared to let the British have control over the military and external affairs of Singapore in return for internal self-government minus the Internal Security Council; not full independence through merger but only internal self-government. In other words, Mr Speaker, the so-called anti-colonial nationalists of the Barisan Sosialis were prepared to sell out our chance of independence to the British in return for the abolition of the Internal Security Council. Why do they want the abolition of the Internal Security Council? Why are they prepared to sell out the chance of independence for Singapore in return for the abolition of the Internal Security Council? It is because they know that the Internal Security Council prevents the Communists from trying to subvert and destroy Singapore. They know that the existence of the internal security laws in an independent and united Malaya would be most disastrous for the cause of Communism. The Communists know that in an independent united Malaya, they will meet with resistance from the nationalists if they try to set up a Communist Malaya. They know that they cannot extend their influence under the cloak of anti-colonialism. Therefore, they would rather prefer that the British continue to rule Singapore and the Borneo territories for a while. Then in that situation they can use the cloak of anti-colonialism to extend their influence in Malaysia. As you know, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have lost the battle for merger just as they have steadily been losing in their campaign to bust up Malaysia. In their desperation, the Barisan Sosialis are now embarking on a really big sell-out. They are now planning to sell us to the P.K.I. They are now looking to the P.K.I. to help them out of their difficulties. They want to break up Malaysia in order to keep it weak and divided, so that through the P.K.I. these territories could be subverted and then swallowed up one by one with the aid of the Indonesian Communists. You will remember, Sir, that sometime ago, there was a report in an Indonesian pro-Communist newspaper, the Bintang Timur. This newspaper reported Mr Lim Ching Siong as saying that he preferred a merger of Singapore with Indonesia to a merger with the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, he denied this report later on. But it is clear now that even if the report was untrue, the Bintang Timur had read the mind of Mr Lim Ching Siong and the Barisan Sosialis. The P.K.I. has since then passed a resolution denouncing Malaysia and merger. Some of the Barisan Sosialis leaders have claimed that the fact that they are against Malaysia and the fact that the P.K.I. is against Malaysia does not therefore mean that the Barisan Sosialis are following a pro-Communist policy too. Is the P.A.P., they ask, branding all who oppose Malaysia as Communists? The P.A.P. has always made a distinction between non-Communists who are critical of Malaysia and even opposed to Malaysia and the Communists who are opposed to Malaysia. We understand the sincerity of the non-Communists who are critical or opposed to Malaysia. We think they are wrong in fearing Malaysia. It was these non-Communist anti-Malaysia elements to whom we wanted to talk at the recent Malaysia Socialist Conference held in Kuala Lumpur. We wanted at least to try to convince them both as socialist and nationalists that they had everything to gain by Malaysia. The Communist elements in the Barisan Sosialis, or what should be more correctly described as the Barisan Communists, knew this. They were so scared of being exposed that they managed to rig up the conference in such a way that our working paper giving the socialist approach to Malaysia was rejected. They did not even give us a chance to explain to the conference why our paper should be considered. After all, Mr Speaker, we did not object to the adoption of the working paper of the Barisan Sosialis though that paper was a vicious and malicious attack on the P.A.P. Government and some of its leaders. We knew that in an open debate, we could expose the merits and falsehoods in the Barisan Sosialis paper. But the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis were so scared of even adopting our paper that they prevailed upon the unhappy Chairman not only to reject our paper but also to refuse us an opportunity to explain why our paper should be accepted. This suppression of free speech came, oddly enough, Mr Speaker, immediately after the conference had passed a resolution defending freedom of the Press. I repeat - freedom of the Press. The pro-Communists believe in freedom of the Press, but not in freedom of speech for the P.A.P. They dare not allow free speech, moreover, in a conference packed with cheer leaders who had come to boo and shout down the P.A.P. delegates. But the P.A.P. was nevertheless prepared to speak freely to the non-Communist socialists at the conference in order to convince them of our point of view on Malaysia. The conference Chairman said that though the paper would not be adopted, we could debate Malaysia later on. But it is unusual. Mr Speaker, in a democratic conference that all papers but the P.A.P.'s paper should be adopted. The Chairman was even prepared to consider a paper which the Workers' Party Chairman proposed to submit. The Chairman had not even seen that paper. This is the so-called democracy in which they believe. The truth is that the Communists were so uncertain of the case for Malaysia that they dare not allow a paper by the P.A.P. to he adopted for discussion on Malaysia. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is only a foretaste of the kind of freedom we could hope to get in Singapore and in Malaysia if the Barisan Sosialis were to get control of this country. Why were the Barisan Sosialis so scared of our working paper that they manoeuvred to get our paper rejected? When we went to the meeting of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee meetings in Kuching and in Kuala Lumpur, we were not afraid, Mr Speaker, to take the Member for Thomson along with us, even though we knew that he was really against Malaysia. He had every chance to say what he liked about Malaysia and the P.A.P. in Kuching. If he was silent for most of the time, it was because he knew that whatever false or illogical things he said could be immediately challenged and exposed. It is clear from the resolutions passed after the P.A.P. walk-out that that conference was rigged in order to enable the Communists at the conference to trap the confused and misled non-Communists who were there into endorsing the P.K.I.'s resolutions. We are of the view that the Communists are attempting to use genuine fears about Malaysia to organise an anti-Malaysia campaign to further the ambitions of the P.K.I. in this region. This is the biggest sell-out of the Barisan Sosialis. They have become the stooges of the Indonesian Communists and are now engaged in a treasonable plot to sell out Singapore and Malaysia to the P.K.I. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this the Barisan Sosialis have miscalculated. They will not only earn the contempt but also the anger of the people. They will be rejected by the people because the people will not back a Party which in its desperation is prepared to sell us to the cause of foreign Communism. 4.25 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we of the Barisan Sosialis resolutely and wholeheartedly oppose the motion on the Greater Malaysia Plan moved by the Prime Minister.

We feel that this motion is similar to the motion on the White Paper on merger. There is no difference at all between these two motions. At the same time, we cannot accept the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. We are of the opinion that the amendment of the Member for Anson has not fundamentally changed the character of the motion tabled in this House. Ministers of t1ie Government, together with the Back-benches, have made many allegations during their speeches. They have said that it is only the Barisan Sosialis who are opposed to this motion. We will tell them that our stand is very clear. We will do whatever we think is right. We will also do whatever is in the interest of the people of Singapore. We will oppose anything that is detrimental to the people of Singapore, as we did with the merger motion. Today we have seen that the Four-Party Alliance are supporting the P.A.P. motion. It is no surprise to us because the P.A.P. of today would have collapsed without the support of the Four-Party Alliance. That is why they are toeing the same line. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Tunku moved the motion on Malaysia in the Federal Parliament, he stated clearly that there would be no merger without a Malaysia comprising the five territories of this region. He also said that the citizens of Singapore would not be treated on a par with those in the other territories. It is because of this that without the other territories coming in to form Malaysia, there would not be any merger between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. Our Prime Minister is very anxious about Malaysia because of this remark made by the Prime Minister of the Federation. The Prime Minister of our State is just like an ant on a hot pan. He will resort to all kinds of means to sell out the interest of the people in Singapore. He will do everything to achieve this end. He will do all sorts of tricks to divert the attention of the people of Singapore from the truth. In this way, he hopes to cover up his sell out plan. For example, today and, in fact, every other day, they have talked about the Communists. They say that Mr Lim Ching Siong is controlled by the P.K.I. and so on. They have created a sensation in South-East Asia, by their remarks about the Communists. We would like to point out to them here that the game which they are playing is not new, and the people of Singapore will not fall into their trap. I will go into further details later on. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, about the so-called theories of the P.A.P. The Minister for Culture made a speech last week in this House in which he said that we of the Barisan Sosialis are fond of using words like "masses" and "people". He said that we mentioned those words according to the meaning we had in mind. He said that we used these terms as defined in Lenin's book. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get a book written by Lenin in Singapore. It is indeed a pity -

Lots of copies here.

(In Mandarin): In any case, we would like to tell the Minister for Culture that we are not concerned with or worried about his allegations whether our definition is the same as that of Lenin, Soekarno, Nehru, or what has been said by the Deputy Prime Minister .to his members. We come from the people and we shall return to them. We do not care what kind of meaning he attaches to the words we use. We would like to tell the P.A.P. leadership that when we use the word "people", we mean the thousands of people in the State who comprise the various races who are opposed to the merger plan of the P.A.P., which they do not welcome at all The word "masses" means the big crowds which attended our mass rally in Geylang Serai as well as those people who will come to attend our mass rally in the Badminton Stadium tomorrow afternoon and such other rallies to come in future. If the Minister for Culture and other leaders in the P.A.P. have any doubt as regards the meanings of the words we used, then we shall invite them to attend our rallies.

We are keen.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, last week when the debate on this motion was going on, the McCarthy brothers of the P.A.P. talked of certain interesting things such as would surprise the people of Singapore. The people of Singapore are surprised at the emergence of people like McCarthy of America. They are of the opinion that these people here are even more interesting characters than Mr McCarthy himself. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, desperate people like the leaders of the P.A.P. can only have one hope, and this hope seems to be attached to a plan like the Greater Malaysia Plan, which will be a saviour to them. Without the Malaysia Plan, the life of the P.A.P. will end very soon. It is because of this that they hope that the Malaysia Plan will, if possible, materialise tomorrow. In order to induce the people of Singapore to accept their Malaysia Plan, the P.A.P. are saying everywhere that once Malaysia materialises, there will be heavy rainfall in Singapore to fill up all our reservoirs and there will not be any water rationing. They will also make the people believe that Malaysia will bring a lot of gold to Singapore and the people will lead a life of paradise. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our Ministers appear to be great magicians who hold the magic wand of Malaysia with which they think they can give whatever the people want. In the course of the debate on this motion, the leaders of the Party in power have become all of a sudden great heroes of nationalism and anti-Communism. They bring the banners of nationalists in order to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the true nationalists are those who strongly oppose colonialism. But the leaders of the Party in power are afraid to go against colonialism. Whenever they hear the term "anti-colonialism", they are angry and vexed. They are prepared to accept colonial rule. They think that this colonial rule can be dispensed with on the golf course. They call themselves nationalists, but they have been running away from the people of Singapore who are struggling against colonialism. They are the defeated soldiers of nationalism. I should say that they are deserters from the rank and file of the nationalists. At a time when anti-colonial forces are expanding, the position of the colonial rulers is becoming more and more shaky. The colonialists are afraid that after independence, the peoples will not only wipe out their political influence, but also their control - economically and culturally. The fear of nationalism has led colonialists to approach the pseudo nationalists whom they can make use of. The Malaysia Plan has come about from the background of a colonial game, which is played by the colonial rulers who think that they can no longer continue their stranglehold of this region. That is why they want to get agents through whom they can exert their control and maintain their political influence and economic position in this region. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleague, the Member for Havelock, has very clearly said in this House, and in no uncertain terms, that the Malaysia Plan is a game played and sponsored by the British. It has been brought up by the British with the intention that through this plan they will be able to exert control and perpetuate their influence in this area. The British intend to go out by the front door and come back by the back door - [Interruption]. Our Member for Havelock has already exposed you (the Prime Minister) for what you are. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we feel it is regrettable that the British have found their ideal agents in Singapore in the P.A.P. The P.A.P. people are the pseudo nationalists. The leaders of the P.A.P. are being made use of by the British because they have taken up policies that are against the nationalists and the people. Their position is now shaky because of these policies they have adopted. So, in order to preserve their political life, they have joined the anti-Communists and work hand in hand with the colonialists. Leaders of the PAP, say that only the Communists are opposed to the Malaysia Plan. As a matter of fact, I will tell them that the true nationalists and the broad masses are opposed to the Greater Malaysia Plan arranged by the British. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me give you a clear illustration to show that the true nationalists are opposed to the Malaysia Plan. We all know that the Afro-Asian Solidarity Organisation is a true organisation of the Afro-Asian nationalists. This Afro-Asian Solidarity Organisation has a Permanent Secretariat which recently made a declaration in Cairo condemning the British colonialists for their part in playing the game of Malaysia in this region. They also pointed out that it was the aim of the British to play the Malaysia game to suppress the people in these five territories. The true nationalists of Afro-Asia are opposed to the British playing the Malaysia game. Only leaders of the P.A.P. who are pseudo nationalists will support a plan of this nature. We can see that the true socialists and nationalists have already, as reported in today's papers, passed some resolution on the Malaysia Plan. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to give some examples from the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau which carried reports of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur of socialists from Singapore, Malaya, Brunei, and Sarawak and the resolutions that they passed. These resolutions were passed by representatives of Parties from the five territories. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today's Sin Chew Jit Poh carries a report on the meeting of the socialists concerning the Malaysia Plan. One resolution passed at this meeting reads as follows: `This conference regrets that the P.A.P. has staged a walkout and issued slanderous statements about the conference. We are convinced that they, the P.A.P. delegates, have come here to dominate the conference, failing which they tried to wreck it. They are no more socialists as we believe and so we expel them.'. This resolution was brought up by the Party Ra'ayat in the Federation of Malaya and it was passed at the Conference. Another resolution reads as follows: `This conference condemns the three previous Consultative Solidarity Committee meetings on the Malaysia proposals on the ground that the delegates to these meetings in Sabah, Sarawak and Kuala Lumpur represented their ownselves and the British interests.' This resolution was passed at the conference. Another resolution condemned any move to force through the Malaysia Plan without first obtaining the consent of the Borneo people. Another resolution condemned the three previous Consultative Solidarity Committee meetings on the Malaysia proposals on the ground that the delegates to these meetings in Sabah, Sarawak and Kuala Lumpur represented their ownselves and the British interests. So from these two resolutions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we can see clearly that a true socialist Party or a true nationalist Party will respect national self-determination and they will also see that democracy and equality are achieved in these territories. We can see clearly that the P.A.P. of today has been discarded by the socialist Parties of the five territories. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, no sound arguments and reasons have been advanced by the Ministers of the P.A.P. and their colleagues in support of this motion. Insofar as this country and the three territories of Borneo are concerned, this Plan is not in their interest. We can draw these conclusions from the speeches of the Ministers and their colleagues. First, after the realisation of the Malaysia Plan the people of Singapore and of the three territories in Borneo will not enjoy very many benefits. There will be inequality and they will have to bear the responsibility of the expenses incurred by the Central Government. So this is another form of colonialism if the Malaysia Plan is to be realised on these lines. Second, the British colonialists will be able to maintain their political and economic interest in this area for a long time. Third, the people of this region will be involved in a cold war between the two major blocs in the world because of the British bases in this region. This region might even become a battle-front. Fourth, the P.A.P. leaders think that they will be able to survive after the Malaysia Plan. Fifth, after the realisation of Malaysia, the P.A.P. leaders will work hand in hand with the Right-wing Government of the Federation and join the anti-Communist organisation sponsored by the British and the Americans in South-East Asia. Sixth, this Plan is meant to frustrate the struggle for national liberation by the nationalists and socialists in these five territories. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is why our Chairman has made our stand very clear on this motion. 4.54 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis seem to have a very strange outlook on life. Time and again, they tell us that they agree with the concept of Malaysia or with the principle of Malaysia and yet they have taken up four days of this Assembly's time arguing against the motion moved by the Prime Minister. They explain this obstruction of theirs by claiming that they are interested in the details of the plan as well as in the principle. So are we, but the important thing at this stage is to realise what comes first - and that is agreement with the idea of Malaysia. Let us look at their "details", Sir. They seem to be more concerned about whom the Minister for Culture lives with and what the Prime Minister does in his spare time - when, where and with whom he plays golf. These are certainly details - the sort you get in petty gossip or personal sneering. These are not worthy arguments against a proposal to drive out the British from their last stronghold in this part of the world and to strengthen the whole region economically and politically in the nationalist cause. Sir, let us now look at the principles involved in Malaysia. Whereas it is a means of obtaining independence for the people of Borneo, the Barisan Sosialis claim that it is extending the colonial rule. The plain fact is that this is a way of making the British go out of Malaya. They claim that it is not freedom to exchange the British flag for the Federation one, but it is not so. Apart from the fact that this is not very complimentary to the Federation, it is an exchange of a colonial flag for a nationalist one. In this way, freedom comes much quicker to the Borneo people who can share in the constitutional development of the Federation and in all its political advances so much ahead of their own present position. We are expected to believe that in Malaysia the British will remain in disguise. I would like to know what kind of disguise. All the other members of Malaysia will be people of the same race, language and political desires as themselves. The Barisan Sosialis, of course, also talk a lot about the need to give the Borneo people self-determination, as if after Malaysia they will have no part to play in the democratic government of the whole territory. Let us be quite clear - principles should be simple. Malaysia will mean the end of colonialism and the Borneo people will join a country which has proved its nationalism and made it succeed. They can board the bus to independence. Another principle involved is the greater economic strength of the Malaysia unit. The reality of this is there for everyone to see in the history books and, most of all, in the map. And on that map, Singapore is seen to benefit most of all. I conclude by saying that all this talk of details is like a clear-cut case before the courts where there is no doubt as to a man's innocence but where he is convicted on a technicality. The Barisan Sosialis are trying to destroy to principle of Malaysia - that is, the cause of Malaysia - by a number of technicalities meant to confuse the issue. Sir, the Prime Minister has said that 1962 will be a memorable year. But let us not forget that it is the Year of the Tiger - the year the Malayan Tiger extends its victory over colonialism. [Interruption]. No doubt one day it will eat the Barisan Sosialis. In South-East Asia, the tiger is the King of our tropical forests and rules over all his enemies. The Malayan tiger already rules alone in the Federation, but the same forests extend through Borneo and Singapore. So let the nationalist rule be extended. There is the only way - Malaysia.

Order. The sitting is adjourned to half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.02 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of this debate on Malaysia the Government speakers have drawn attention to the declaration of the Indonesian Communist Party opposing Malaysia. We have pointed out how the Barisan Sosialis line in this matter is identical with that of the P.K.I. The original concept of Malaysia as proposed by the Communists meant the absorption of Singapore into the Republic of Indonesia. The Member for Thomson has clearly stated his approval of this scheme. The Barisan Sosialis members have refuted and denied that they are Communists or stooges of the Communists. How did they try to talk themselves out of this? My view, Sir, is that they did so in the most infantile and ineffective manner. Many of the speakers, including the Member for Upper Serangoon and the Member for Thomson, are duped in this way. If the Communists oppose the present Malaysia Plan and they also oppose Malaysia, this does not prove that they are Communists. If the Communists see certain things to be true and they also come to the same conclusion, this does not make them Communists. No one will dispute this obvious proposition. However, there is nothing original to this line. Some years ago the open front Communist leader, Mr Lim Ching Siong, said that Communist eat rice and he eats rice. But this does not make him a Communist. This way of arguing to disprove a well-known fact is quite childish. One might as well say that since Mr Kennedy walks on two legs, and Mr Khrushchev also walks on two legs, therefore, Mr Khrushchev is an American. This kind of logic betrays the low mentality of the Barisan Sosialis. When the P.A.P. say that they are Communists or stooges of the Communists, we have produced concrete evidence and have challenged them to refute this evidence. They have not dared so far to deny the evidence that we have produced. Let me remind the House of what we have said about the Member for Thomson. May I quote from a broadcast of the Prime Minister? It is in page 75 of the booklet, "The Battle for Merger", third paragraph, taken from the 10th broadcast of the Prime Minister. He said: `The Communists have a wide range of persuasion and pressure techniques for the manipulation of human beings. They won over S. T. Bani partly because their zeal and ceaseless work in the unions convinced him that he did not have a chance competing against them, partly by the argument that the world is being slowly absorbed and converted to Communism, and finally by the constant pressure of persuasion and argument wearing down his nerves. He came to see me in hospital in July last year. He said we had made a great mistake in taking office, and that we should get out of office as soon as possible. At that time there were acute conflicts in the T.U.C. Secretariat between Lim and Fong's pro-Communist faction, and Kandasamy and Devan Nair's non-Communist faction, Bani was then on the side of Kandasamy and Devan Nair who was his closest friend. Devan and Bani were such close friends that only last year they rented adjoining houses. But by October last year we slowly discovered that something had happened to him. He had gone over to the Communist side. Now he is not on speaking terms with Devan Nair although he still lives next door.' What the Prime Minister said is the truth and will stand as the truth. If the Member for Thomson thinks it is a false allegation, it is a simple matter for him to bring a charge against the Prime Minister for defamation of character. He will then have full opportunity in a court of law to have the truth established. If the Prime Minister cannot prove his case, the Member for Thomson will be awarded handsome damages. But like all the other Communists mentioned in "The Battle for Merger", they know that what is said about them is the truth and they know that if it is brought to court the truth will be confirmed. Sir, let me also remind the House what the Finance Minister said about the Member for Queenstown during the debate on the motion of confidence on the 20th July last year. I am going through these details to show beyond all doubt that when we say that they are Communists or stooges of the Communists, we have full and irrefutable proof of our statements. Sir, I am quoting from Hansard, Vol. 14, No. 23, col. 1729. This is what the Finance Minister said: `... the Parliamentary Secretary [i.e. the Member for Queenstown] declared that the salvation of the P.A.P. lies in full ... co-operation with the Communists. Sir, I am not mincing my words here ... In our discussions that we had, we did not use vague terms such as "extreme left" or "Leftist socialists". We were talking about the Communists and both he and I understood what we meant. I posed to him the question whether he had understood the risk involved in such a course of action. I said to him, "If you are a Communist and act as one, you have no cause to regret should any ill consequences befall you. You understand the ideology; you are dedicated to the cause, and you are prepared for the sacrifices. But if you are not a Communist and try to toe their line, then you have only yourself to blame if events overwhelm you." Now, Sir, the [Member for Queenstown] is no Communist. He does not even understand the most elementary tenets of Marxism-Leninism.'

Order. If the Minister is quoting, he must quote the exact words in the Official Report. The words are, "Now, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary is no Communist." Of course, we do know that "the Parliamentary Secretary" means "the Member for Queenstown" in this context. But what I wish to point out is that if there is a quotation, that quotation must be quoted. Otherwise, of course, the Minister can paraphrase.

Sir, can I substitute the words "the Member for Queenstown" for "the Parliamentary Secretary"? `Now, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary is no Communist. He does not even understand -'

Order. The Minister, of course, could stop there and say, "The Parliamentary Secretary is the Member for Queenstown". The point I am trying to make is that words in a quotation must be mentioned. That is all there is to it.

`Now, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary [in this case, the Member for Queenstown] is no Communist. He does not even understand the most elementary tenets of Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, a great deal of his behaviour and activity rather suggest to me the conduct of a foolish virgin who has entered into a brothel area and proclaimed the brotherhood of men. Why did he want to embark on this hazardous course? He wants mass popularity for the Party and for himself which he thinks only the Communists can provide. I repeatedly asked him whether or not he had calculated the consequences... Sir, I have spent a long time with the Parliamentary Secretary to convince him of the error of his assumption.' I am quoting from column 1730, second paragraph, 5th line: `But I could not move him from that position ... the British ... had convinced the Communists that it is safe for them to proceed, and the Communists in turn have convinced the Parliamentary Secretary that no ill consequences would follow his throwing in his lot with them. On the contrary, he would get the advantage of mass popularity and the support of their mass organisations in Singapore. And in the end, Sir, a delectable prize to win - the Premiership of Singapore!' That is why the Member for Queens-town is co-operating with the Communists and is willing to serve as their stooge. I now come to the Member for Upper Serangoon. He has spoken a great deal about the logic of saying that Mr Khrushchev is an American just like President Kennedy - he walks on two legs. Our case against the Member for Upper Serangoon is not whether he walks on two legs or on four legs, or crawls on his belly or whether he eats rice or sweet potatoes. Our case against him is that during his schooldays he had already enrolled as a member of the Anti-British League. Everybody knows that the Anti-British League is the cadet corps of the [Malayan Communist Party. It is in the Anti-British League that young men and women are trained and put through their paces in all kinds of illegal and conspiratorial work. The proper A.B.L. graduated into full membership of the Malayan Communist Party. The Member for Upper Serangoon joined the Anti-British League when he was in school, as did the Member for Havelock. The Anti-British League is organised on the same cell system as the parent Malayan Communist Party. Each cell is guided by a leader. Now and then membership and leadership of cells changed. The Member for Upper Serangoon was under the guidance of several leaders who had been underground operators for the Malayan Communist Party for a long time. One of these men was arrested some years ago and banished to China. Recently another underground Communist with whom the Member for Upper Serangoon had close association emerged from the underground and made contact with him. It was this man who finally persuaded him to join the others in attacking the P.A.P. Thus the Member for Upper Serangoon has renewed his association with the underground organisation of the Malayan Communist Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that this is a serious charge to make. If the Member for Upper Serangoon cares to deny it, we are prepared to produce evidence in support of not only this allegation but also disclose further and more lurid details of his association with the Malayan Communist Party. Mr Speaker. Sir, Mr Lim Ching Siong tries to laugh away this business by saying that other people have accused him of being a Communist. The trouble is that other people have never worked in co-operation with the Communists in the anti-colonial struggle. But we of the P.A.P. did so for several years. We, therefore, know what we are talking about. We know how they operate and we know who the guilty men are. We have named them, and they have not dared to deny the particular evidence we have produced. The reason why the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis oppose Malaysia is very simple. They know that after merger and Malaysia they will stand in great danger from security action taken by the Central Government of the Federation. The Federation Government fought the Communists not only in their subversive activities but also in a prolonged shooting war. The Communists, therefore fear the elected government of the Federation of Malaya. It is not for us in the P.A.P. to say whether or not these fears are justified. This is a matter solely for them to judge. I would suggest, however, that they have already come to the conclusion that a great store of misfortune lies ahead of both the Communists, their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis, and their operators in the open front trade unions and other organisations after merger or Malaysia. Hence, their mounting frantic effort to stop Malaysia. But they will fail to do this. Both Malaysia and merger are historically inevitable and the Communists themselves know it. Most of their stooges who are less intelligent than the Communists are slowly beginning to realise the awful truth. That is why they are trying to deny that they have anything to do with the Communists. But as the ancient saying goes, "Truth is great and it shall prevail." 6.48 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, you will remember that during the course of the debate on this motion last week, the red caps of the Communists were flung about in this House. You will also remember how the leaders of the P.A.P. called all those who opposed this motion as Communists or stooges controlled by the Communists. Mr Speaker. Sir, these rash and derogatory accusations by the P.A.P. leaders will not frighten the broad masses into changing their stand and attitude towards the Malaysia Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leaders' desperate and malicious shouts of madness have already lost their effect. Starting from today the P.A.P. are having their so-called Malaysia Week during which the P.A.P. Government will invite a colonial officer of Sarawak, namely, Mr Morrison of the Intelligence Department, to give a broadcast over Radio Singapore. The P.A.P. Government have also ordered that all ships anchored within the waters of Singapore should be decorated in celebration of Malaysia Week. Again the P.A.P. Government have asked Mr Alex Josey, who was the Director in charge of Psychological Warfare during the Emergency in the Federation, to write all sorts of articles. In spite of all these moves taken by the P.A.P. Government, I believe the peoples in Singapore, the Federation of Malaya. Sarawak and Brunei can see one secret. The P.A.P. leadership is trying to play with the Malaysia Plan only with this aim. That is, the P.A.P. hopes to go through with this plan in order to salvage its dying political power. Mr Speaker, Sir, what are the views of the peoples in the five territories of Brunei, Sarawak, North Borneo, Singapore and the Federation on Malaysia? Here I would like to acquaint you with one fact. At the Kuala Lumpur Conference of the Malaysian Socialists yesterday, all the representatives from Brunei and Sarawak strongly opposed the Malaysia Plan. Even the Party Rakyat and the Labour Party of the Federation of Malaya disagreed with the stand of the P.A.P. on this question. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to disclose to you some more facts. The majority of the representatives at this Malaysian Socialist Conference are Malays. This conference was conducted by a Malay. It was under such circumstances that the P.A.P.'s views were rejected by the conference. After the rejection, the P.A.P. delegation, headed by the Minister for Culture, walked out of the conference. Mr Speaker, Sir, after the anti-Communist heroes of the P.A.P. left the conference, the Minister for Culture abused the Communists. He made the allegation that this was a conference of the Communists and that it was controlled by the Communists. Mr Speaker, by uttering such rash and discourteous words the Minister for Culture and his associates had not only insulted the representatives from the five territories at the meeting, but also insulted the people of all the five territories. By this behaviour, they have discredited the people of Singapore in the eyes of the five territories. Communist this, Communist that! The red hats of the Communists have been flown from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur. Mr Speaker, Sir, why should the Minister for Culture be so anxious and excited? It is simply because he knows that the true socialists of the five territories do not welcome the Malaysia Plan sponsored by the Right-wing elements in conjunction with the British colonialists who were behind the scenes. Mr Speaker, Sir, the history of Malaya tells us that when a Party and its politicians are confronted with the prospect of being in their last days, they will resort to the last weapon. That is, they will play with communalism as their political tactics, and in the meantime they will shout anti-Communist slogans. But history also tells us that all those who played with communal politics and shouting anti-communist slogans met with a very bad end. The Minister for Culture is today just following the footsteps of the Member for Cairnhill in shouting anti-communist slogans. From his behaviour, we can see that even the Member for Cairnhill has to look up to him as an elder person in regard to the shouting of anti-Communist slogans. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. delegation was exposed in their attempts to wreck the conference of the Socialists in Kuala Lumpur. They have been held up as a Party which is not socialist. It has also now been shown that the P.A.P. leadership are anti-Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Malaysia Plan, I entirely support the arguments advanced by the Member for Queenstown who is the Chairman of our Party. 1 therefore appeal to the leaders of the P.A.P. to forget about their mad shouting and malicious abuses, and instead listen calmly to the voices of the peoples in the five territories.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in the debate on merger, we knew that the Barisan Sosialis were afraid to debate or to take part in the voting. This was made clear when the division was called. The Barisan Sosialis revealed their fear by leaving the Chamber and not taking part in the voting. Mr Speaker, on the merger motion too, the agents of the Barisan Sosialis took active measures to meet the people in coffee-shops and agitating the Chinese section by frightening methods that if merger were realised, the Malays would overwhelm the Chinese. In addition, the pro-Communist elements of the Barisan Sosialis have, by the use of their agents in Malaya, tried to frighten the Malays that if merger were realised, it would mean that the Malays would be overwhelmed by the Chinese. Now we come to the Malaysia motion. The Barisan Sosialis are very afraid of merger. The pro-Communists are even more afraid of Malaysia. Just now the Member for Serangoon Gardens said that the P.A.P. always accused the Barisan Sosialis of being pro-Communists. This, he said, would not frightened away the people. It is true that the people would not be afraid. But the people who are afraid are the pro-Communist Members of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, several Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen have quoted reports in connection with the Malaysian Socialist Conference held in Malaya. I also wish to quote an excerpt from page 1 of the Berita Harian of today's issue. It says that this Conference condemned the P.A.P. delegates led by Mr Devan Nair; the leader of the P.A.P. delegation walked out of the conference and the conference considered that the P.A.P. delegates attempted to manipulate the conference. After the resolution was adopted, the Chairman, Mr Ishak, said, "The P.A.P. are no longer socialists and with this they are expelled and they are hereby expelled." Mr Speaker, we know that this conference was not a truly socialist conference. It was merely a camouflage and was organised by the Communists. If, according to the Chairman, the P.A.P. had been expelled, this does not surprise us because we are a genuine socialist party. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, in the same issue of Berita Harian, there is a report mentioning a speech made by Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, who spoke in Mandarin and Malay. In his speech in Malay, he denied that he was a Communist. Mr Speaker, this has been proved by the Prime Minister in his book The Battle for Merger. He has said that if Mr Lim Ching Siong has got the guts to refute this allegation, he should take court action against the Prime Minister. And Mr Lim Ching Siong also denied that the Barisan Sosialis received inspiration from the Communist Party in Indonesia. "It is not we who are toeing the line of the P.K.I. but the reverse is the case," Mr Lim Ching Siong said amidst applause and clapping of hands. Mr Speaker, I personally know Mr Lim Ching Siong. He has denied that he is a follower of the P.K.I. and that the P.K.I. is following his line. This goes to prove, Mr Speaker, that two times five are 10. Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis are genuinely afraid of the realisation of Malaysia or merger because they fear that out of this will emerge second-class citizenship and the question of internal security. Yes, Mr Speaker, internal security laws will be applied to real pro-Communist elements or Communists. But a real socialist fighter need not be afraid of the internal security laws. Mr Speaker. I personally underwent the experience of having been persecuted by the internal security laws, but because I have complete faith in socialism, I met such persecutions bravely. Only pro-Communists or real Communists are afraid of the internal security laws. The Member for Serangoon Gardens said the Malaysian Socialist conference in Malaya was guided by a Malay. I know a number of Malays present at the conference. I know from my colleagues that only three Malays attended the conference. This means that in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, pro-Communist elements or Communists do not have the support of the Malays. I hope that all the Malays and other communities will be on their guard against Communist subversive elements who are infiltrating associations and villages in order to frustrate or wreck merger and Malaysia and so on. Mr Wee Toon Boon and Dr Toh Chin Chye rose ---

Mr Wee Toon Boon. Mr Wee Toon Boon remained silent.

Mr Wee Toon Boon, not speaking?

Afterwards.

No. I have called the Member. He caught my eye. If he wishes to speak, he must speak now. 6.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion that is before the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fail to understand the logic of the Barisan Sosialis. They say they are fervent anti-colonialists, but when we the P.A.P. are fervently trying to liberate the people not only in Singapore but also in the three Borneo territories from the clutches of British colonialism, they, the Barisan, strongly oppose our attempt. They find all sorts of methods to frustrate this movement. We in the P.A.P. try to rally the forces and the strength of the people in these three territories so as to liberate them who are still in the clutches of the British colonial master, but they, instead of organising the people and rallying them together to throw off the colonial yoke, collaborate with the British High Commissioner to frustrate our attempt to bring the people into a united Malaysia. As you will have observed, Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate on the motion last month, which embodied the proposed terms of merger between Singapore and the Federation, they vehemently condemned it. Now, when we are discussing the motion to bring freedom to the people of Sarawak, Borneo and Brunei, they too again oppose it. They always condemn and slander us as pro-colonialists and Rightists. Now, let us see what the Member for Queenstown had to say of the P.A.P. when he was with us. You remember, Sir, the Member for Queenstown, the Member for Mountbatten and the Member for Ulu Pandan represented the Singapore C.P.A. Branch to the conference held in Kuching in August 1960. In the report which the three of them submitted to the C.P.A. -

Order. That report is confidential. I think the hon. Member will find it is marked "Not for Publication". He should not quote from that report.

But anyway, the three of them told us that Singapore was fighting the battle of democratic socialism in this part of the world. I remember, Sir, in the appendix to that report, he gave his own impression of the conference and told us that -

Order. I have already indicated that that report is confidential to the C.P.A. It must not be referred to.

Sir, I bow to your ruling. But my point is this. What I am trying to do is to refute the allegations that are now hurled against the P.A.P. When they were with us and even as late as in the Hong Lim by-election, they stood on our platform and told the public that we are a progressive government and that we are the vanguard of the anti-colonial forces. We are, in fact, the Government that brought freedom and benefits to the workers in Singapore. But now, Mr Speaker, after the split and in a matter of months, they have forgotten what they told the public about the P.A.P. They are trying to hurl abuse at us, saying that we are no more anti-colonial forces, that we are pro-colonialists and Rightists. As I have said just now, I am at a loss to understand the logic and philosophy of the Barisan Sosialis. When we in the P.A.P. are trying to organise the people and the nationalist leaders in Malaya, Singapore and the three Borneo territories to remove the British Union Jack and to hoist our own national emblem, they do not want to join us. They still want the British Union Jack to be hoisted on to the flagposts of these three territories. And now, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are discussing a motion which will give freedom not only to the people of Singapore but also to the people of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei. On one occasion when we debated the motion on merger between Singapore and the Federation, we heard the convincing story of what transpired between the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis and Lord Selkirk. But in this instance, when we are debating the motion on Malaysia, we have again observed the betrayal of the people by the Barisan Sosialis who connived with an outside body - the Indonesian Communist Party. In these two debates, we have heard them accusing the PAP. Government of suppressing the freedom of the people by the use of the police and military forces against the people. But what have we seen at the conference in Kuala Lumpur? When the P.A.P. asked that they be allowed to submit their working paper on their stand on the reunification of all the people in Malaysia, the socialists rejected it. They discussed instead something else which was contrary to the interest of the people in these territories. The Barisan Sosialis always say that we are not interested in the welfare of the workers, but that is not trite. We have time and again explained to this House that the resources in Singapore are limited. In order to bring benefits to the people, we must, first of all, wrest political power from the British colonial masters, and then we will be able to shape an economy which will bring comfort and benefit to our working class. This has always been our objective, but we only meet with obstruction from the Barisan Sosialis leaders. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the allegation that the P.A.P. have suppressed the workers, I will have the opportunity no doubt of replying to it When we debate the next motion. But. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are trying to bring something good for the people in Malaysia, and therefore, we will fight against any people who try to frustrate our plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis oppose Malaysia not because it is bad for the 10 million people in Malaysia but because it is bad for the Communists. An hon. Member: It is good for the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we say that we believe in parliamentary democracy. We have to face the people after our term of office. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have accused us of betraying the people by achieving merger. They say that we are still in office for the good of ourselves and that we have deviated from our anti-colonial stand. So according to the logic of the Barisan Sosialis, if these accusations are true, then we should fight against Malaysia and merger. We will work for the good of the people and we know what they want us to do. Therefore, we have to be firm in our stand in spite of the smear that we are pro-colonialists and Rightists. An hon. Member: Fascists.

With regard to the allegation that we are Fascists, it is very simple to rebut it. As I said just now, I could not make my speech as I forgot to bring some newspapers. We can quote many instances. What happened at the conference in Kuala Lumpur? We believe in the achievement of a democratic Malaya; we must have the courage to stand up and fight against those who try to frustrate this movement. Sir, we have also been accused by the Barisan Sosialis that we deny them the freedom of speech, assembly, and so on. These Members of the Barisan Sosialis who defected from our Party know the laws of the country but they make no attempt to apply for a permit to paste posters or to hold rallies. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, where is the truth that we are Fascists and that we are suppressing freedom? Mr Speaker, Sir, we are accused of betraying the people. The truth is that we are not prepared to be manipulated by the Communist front organisations or by the Communists themselves. They left our Party and they now have no protection from us. That is why they are scared that they will suffer the consequences of their foolishness. That is why, after realising what they have done, they want us to give them the necessary protection. But the point is this: we are going to fight for the interest of the people in Malaya, and, therefore, we are not interested in the safety or in the welfare of a few people. These people have been warned that if they want to carry on in the same way, it would not only bring disaster to them but also to the people in Malaya. That is our duty and we will continue to look after the interest of the people. 6.23 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this subject but the illogical arguments advanced by the Member for for Havelock make it necessary for me to speak on a few points. I feel that on such an important subject like this, which involves the lives of 10 million people, we should not take the opportunity of playing politics. During the last four days, I expected the Government to mention the concrete benefits that the man in the street will get if Malaysia is implemented and the disaster that will take place if Malaysia is not implemented. I also expected the Barisan Sosialis to put forward their views as to what disaster will befall the man in the street if Malaysia is implemented - with both of them giving examples in support of their arguments. Instead of which we heard that travel would be made easier - how many of the ordinary people travel, Sir? - and sweeping statements like, "There are potentialities. Cultural and economic ties demand that we should be together." Such things do not affect the average man. But what I noticed was that mud and dirt have been flung around this Chamber; so I made up my mind not to speak. But as I said, the illogical statements made by the member for Havelock have stirred me into making these points. The Member for Havelock said that because Lord Selkirk was afraid that Indonesia would turn its attention to Borneo after West Irian, we must oppose Malaysia. I do not see any logic in that statement, Sir. Why must we cut our nose to spite our face? If we are going to have more potentialities and prosperity, are we going to oppose Malaysia just because Lord Selkirk is interested? He may be interested in his own way. But whether we accept it or not depends on whether the Government can prove to us if it is going to be for the good of the people. We are not concerned with how Lord Selkirk feels about it, Sir,I do not see how that argument can hold water. Since I am speaking, I might as well touch on the points raised by the other Members which I consider to be illogical. The two questions of West Irian and Malaysia are quite different. That is why the Barisan Sosialis opposed one but supported the other, because the argument given was that only a few hundred Papuans in West Irian are involved and that 10 million people are involved in Malaysia. I cannot see the logic that because a few hundred people are involved we must not allow colonialism to continue, and that because 10 million people are involved colonialism can continue. I cannot quite follow that logic, Sir. The next point is that the Malaysia Plan is a White Paper proposal. I think the Barisan Sosialis are giving the P.A.P. more credit than they deserve. I do not think they are all that powerful. I do not think that all the people of the Borneo territories and Malaya are going to listen and adopt a White Paper of the P.A.P. I do not think they have the authority to do it in the first place. The Barisan Sosialis are giving them far too much credit. They went on to say that because they rejected the White Paper merger proposals, they must also reject this motion on Malaysia. I do not understand how it follows because the White Paper are details on our merger. They have said that they are in agreement with the principle and concept of merger and Malaysia. But the White Paper are details which they do not agree with. They have every right to disagree with it. But it does not follow that because they do not agree with the details of our merger, the concept of Malaysia - which they admit they are in agreement with - must also be rejected. The next point they raised was that this Malaysia Plan should be motivated by a sincere desire to promote benefit for the people in the territories. They them said that the Plan is a project of the pro-Western politicians and that the real attraction was the oilfields. You will remember, Sir, that it was the leader of the Barisan Sosialis - I stand to be corrected - who sang the praises of Tunku Abdul Rahman as being an honest and a frank person who never told a lie. These words were uttered by one of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis - I do not know which one of them. An hon. Member: She is not sure!

Anyway, Sir, after having said that it was not motivated by a sincere desire to promote Malaysia for the benefit of the people in the territories, they now suspected that the promoters, and Tunku Abdul Rahman, the prime mover, of being pro-Western politicians. I stand corrected, but I think the words "colonial stooge" were used about the promoters, of whom Tunku Abdul Rahman was one whom they have sung praises of. Then there was a nasty insinuation - that probably the real aim was to control the oilfields. Sir, if a man is sincere, frank, and honest, I do not think he will do that. Those two do not tally. If they think he is fair and honest, they must not say those things about him. If they do so, it is unfair to sing praises about him, as that will only confuse us. The other matter that they made capital of was the utterance of the Prime Minister of the Federation - to have the right Committee to recommend the right things. Sir, may I ask, what are the right things? I believe the right things must be peace, prosperity, advancement, justice for the people. Those are the right things. If you want the right things, surely you must have the right people to recommend. You do not want the wrong people to make a mess of the right things. If we are agreed that the right things are prosperity and so on, surely [Interruption]. Healthy for women! Yes. Surely we must have the right people, and the right Committee. I do not know what argument there is in that. What do we want? Do we want the wrong people to make a mess of the whole thing? Sir, we support this motion because, far from what was suggested by the Barisan - that it is an anti-Indonesian project - we feel that it is an anti. Communist project. That is why we are supporting it. They want independence for Borneo before Malaysia, and they say, "What is the hurry? Why should there not be independence first? Why must there be Malaysia straightaway?" I say this, Sir. The hurry is this: we are running a race not with people like the Member for Nee Soon and the Member for Queenstown - I think they are quite innocent - but we are running a race with the Communists who are very, very dangerous people. You know, Sir, Communism thrives and breeds best among poverty-stricken people. The Member for Queenstown, as was mentioned just now by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, was with me in Kuching for that conference. If I am not mistaken, he also did what I did - visited the different parts of Kuching and went to see how the indigenous people live. I am sure he must agree with me that the conditions ire far from what he and I would call satisfactory, Sir, so much so that - it is not now that I, feel it but at that time when I spoke to the authorities there - I said. "Don't you think that this State of affairs is ideal for Communism to breed in?" I asked him that, Sir, and I do not want to go into the details of his answer.

What was the answer?

That is why, Sir, I feel that we cannot afford to delay. I shall endeavour to give the reasons why I feel that we cannot delay. Firstly, Sir, as I said, the Communists are not the people whom we can play around with. We all know that their creed is to dominate the world. Are we going to allow it? If not, what are we going to do about it? Secondly, it has been accepted that Communism rests on the assumption that the tide of history is in their favour. And recent events, Sir, have more than proved that their aim is to make this tide flow faster. Thirdly, why I feel it is to their interest for us to delay is that the Communist choice of weapons is very, very wide, and unimpaired by moral considerations. For instance, Sir, their agents are world wide. They are found in the World Peace Council, the World Federation of Trade Unions, the World Federation of Democratic Youth, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the World Congress of Doctors, the International Organisation of Journalists. In every section of the world population there is a section where the Communists can work through, and work fast, with all these organisations. There was one organisation, Sir, the World Federation of Women, which I see in the directory of women's organisations of the world. I do not see any reports of this organisation recently. I do not know whether it still exists, and so I have not mentioned it. But it is found in the directory of world women's organisations.

The Democratic Women's Federation.

Sir, these organisations can be mobilised to organise campaigns at suitable moments. They have branches in most countries, even in countries where Communism is banned. The World Peace Council itself, Sir, has representations in 74 countries. The World Federation of Trade Unions has representations in 64 countries, until then 58; it has increased since then. With representations in 64 countries they have 88 million workers supporting them, and 60 million of these 88 million are in non-Communist countries. We can see the rate of infiltration. That is why I feel it very important that we do not delay any longer. Just to show you the speed at which they work. This organisation which I was talking about, the World Federation of Trade Unions, which is represented in 64 countries and with the support of 88 million workers, was started towards the end of last war - around 1945, I think, I do not know the exact date - by whom? By the British Trades Union Congress. When it started, Russia insisted that the post of Secretary-General must be given to the Russian delegate. Having got that positions within three years, Sir, they commanded a Communist majority in the Executive Bureau, the Executive Commission, and in the General Council. So much so that by 1949, the British delegates found it advisable to withdraw on the advice of Arthur Deakin. This is what he said when he advised them to withdraw: `We started with an honest intention. But we were not dealing with honest men.' Sir, someone said - I am sorry I for-got the name - that the communists believe that the flag follows the trade; opposite to what the British believe. The British believe that trade follows the flag. We could see this happening and we could believe in it because there are manifestations of it, if we look at the position of trade in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet bloc. The Communist bloc is moving very fast. Eastern Europe, which used to have 9 per cent of Egypt's trade in 1953; has absorbed only 3.2 per cent of Egypt's trade by 1958. The Soviet bloc took only half a per cent of Syria's exports in the first half of 1957, but by the end of 1958 they commanded 21 per cent. So you see, Sir, in every way they are progressing so fast that if we are to hope to win the race, we too must move very fast, because a day's delay, Sir, means one extra day for the Communists to exploit the position. Every strike and unrest, Sir, is reported back to Communist headquarters. I would like to quote from this little booklet, the Communist Plan for World Domination. `To sum up, the moves in a Communist propaganda campaign are roughly as follows...' and it goes on - 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6 and 7. I am really interested in 6 and 7, and I will read 6: `6. Results: Perhaps strikes, perhaps merely numbers, signatures, or demonstrators are reported back to Moscow. Claims of huge success [this is what I am interested in] are published in other countries and the Fronts emphasise the world-wide search of feeling in favour of the policy.' Then in summing up, it says: `Propaganda may, of course, be used as the first step of a long campaign of subversion. It is particularly useful in the war of nerves against social democrats which develops when Communists gain a foothold in a parliamentary democracy.' Therefore, Sir, you see why I say that every day's delay is an extra day for them to exploit us. It is horrifying to think that every strike in Singapore, probably with the most sincere intention of the labourers to try and get better terms of service, better salaries for themselves, is reported back and used as propaganda for the Communists against our own country. Sir, I feel that the quicker we act, the better it is for us. And I appeal to all those who claim to be anti-Communists or even non-Communists to try and help turn this tide which the Communists are trying their best to make flow in their favour. Try and turn the tide. The best way to do it is for the democratic forces like Singapore, Malaya and Borneo to unite, because unity is strength. 6.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Hong Lim has said quite correctly that all right-thinking people should support the principle and concept of Malaysia. Therefore, it follows logically that those who oppose the principle of the concept of Malaysia must be out of their minds. But we must carefully examine the lunacy of those who oppose this principle of Malaysia. We have in this Assembly an incredible situation where the Barisan Sosialis is the only Party that has opposed the motion in the name of the Prime Minister. But it would be foolish indeed if we were to think that the people in the Barisan Sosialis are just mad men. I will prove to the House that there is a sinister motive and method behind the apparent lunacy of the Barisan Sosialis. Time and again it has been said by us and by Members on the Opposition Benches themselves that the Barisan Sosialis is taking the line from outside sources. In other words, many of the 13 Barisan Assemblymen sitting on the opposite side are not the people who decide or determine the objects of the Party or the line of the Party; many of them are mere stooges, and there are bigger people behind the scenes who are directing which way the Barisan Sosialis should go. The Member for Thomson, Mr Bani, attended two C.P.A. Consultative Solidarity Committee meetings. One was held on the 18th and 19th of December last year in Kuching, and the other in Kuala Lumpur on 7th and 8th of January this year. At that time, the Member for Thomson did not disagree with the idea of Malaysia. The very fact that he attended the meetings would obviously indicate that his Party supports the idea of Malaysia. But suddenly on the 18th of January, when we were having a debate on West Irian, the Member for Thomson uttered two startling statements. Firstly, he said that Malaysia is anti-Indonesia. Secondly, Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia. Now we have to find out why is it that the Member for Thomson has taken a sudden change in the line. The reason is quite simple if I were to inform Members of the House that the Communist Party of Indonesia, the P.K.I., moved a resolution opposing Malaysia on 31st December, 1961. Therefore, before this resolution of the P.K.I. was issued, Members of the Barisan Sosialis would not know which line to adopt. After that resolution was issued on the 31st December, 1961, it filtered down to Singapore to the Barisan. That was why on the 18th of January, the Member for Thomson uttered these two startling statements, namely, that Malaysia is anti-Indonesia and Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia. It is very obvious, Mr Speaker, that a number of Assemblymen from the Barisan Sosialis did not know that this resolution had been taken by the P.K.I. and that this was the line for the Communist followers in Singapore to adopt. That would explain very clearly the sudden twist in the Barisan policy. It is rather absurd for Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, to pronounce at the Kuala Lumpur Malayan Socialist Conference that it is the P.K.I. who is following the Barisan and not the Barisan that is following the P.K.I. May I remind Members of this House that the Communist Party of Indonesia, the P.K.I., is the third largest Communist Party in the world'? Who is the Barisan that the P.K.I. should follow it? The Barisan compared to the P.K.I., is only a Party of piddlers. You would not expect their Chairman, Mr Aidit, and his followers, to follow the Member for Nee Soon, the Member for Thomson or the Secretary General of the Barisan Sosialis. They are faced with a ridiculous situation where the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis is only a big frog in a small well, saying that it is the P.K.I. that follows the Barisan and not the Barisan that follows the P.K.I. The Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis incidentally also said in Kuala Lumpur that the latest allegation against the Barisan Sosialis Members was that they were reactionary Communists; that is, as if reactionary Communists were something and progressive Communists something else. But you will notice that he never at that conference denied that there are Communists in the Barisan Sosialis. He just tried to explain that there may be reactionary Communists in the Barisan and that there may also be progressive Communists in the Barisan Sosialis. But may I also add that Lenin also said that there are also good Communists and infantile Communists. From what we can see, there arc many infantile Communists in the Barisan Sosialis. It is rather an awkward situation that the Barisan Sosialis face now, that they find themselves taking the wrong stand, and having taken the wrong stand, then try to explain it away or to white-wash their stand by saying that we who support Malaysia are anti-Communists. Therefore, to follow that logical reasoning, those who oppose Malaysia must be Communists. This morning's newspapers gave quite a considerable coverage to the so-called Socialist Conference in Kuala Lumpur. I have no doubt that Members of the House have read what has been reported in the Press. We in the P.A.P. are not against any political Party per se. But it is quite logical that when the P.A.P. is attacked, we must therefore reply. Here we have Mr Stephen Yong, Secretary-General of the Sarawak United People's Party, saying at the Kuala Lumpur Conference, "We do not wish to be liberated by the P.A.P." Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. has no desire, much less the means, to extricate Mr Stephen Yong from the soup that he is in. We have not the wherewithal to liberate the S.U.P.P. from the embrace of the Communists or the clutches of the Barisan. It is up to Mr Stephen Yong himself to free his own Party so that his Party will have its own independence there. It would be churlish indeed, in fact it would be presumptuous, for the P.A.P. to say that we want to liberate him. But I would say to the people in Sarawak that it is not the Federation of Malaya or Singapore or the P.A.P. that is going to liberate Sarawak. All I say is this. If Sarawak does not wake up, one day it will find that it is going to be liberated by people who have got the guns, the aeroplanes and the warships. I do not believe the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation are that war-like that we will go around liberating Sarawak. On the contrary a large number of people in Sarawak and the Borneo territories, have expressed their real fears that either they come together united with the Federation of Malaya and Singapore and so preserve their own integrity, or one day they will be "liberated". At Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysia Socialist Conference passed a number of resolutions one of which reads as follows: `Strongly condemn the White Paper on merger between Singapore and Malaya and the present Malaysia proposals of the Alliance and the British Governments as being hostile to the concept of Malaysia and directed against progressive forces in this region and aimed as a military threat to Indonesia.' I would like to take up that point.

It is from the Straits Times, is it?

Yes, it is from the Straits Times of today. I wouid like to take up two points in this passage. (1) Malaysia being hostile to the concept of Malaysia. (2) Malaysia is a military threat to Indonesia. Sir, in our minds, the concept of Malaysia is very simple indeed. It means that the five territories of the Federation of Malaya. Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei come together as a single unit - to be united as a single State. That is our concept of Malaysia. So I do not possibly see how such a concept can be hostile to the concept of Malaysia. This is where those who supported this resolution at the Kuala Lumpur Conference should clarify to the people. What is their concept of Malaysia? Does their concept of Malaysia mean in the terms of the Member for Thomson, that Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia? If that is so, then I fully agree that the union of our five territories - the Federation of Malaya, Borneo, Sarawak, Brunei and Singapore - is not in keeping with the thinking that was propounded by the Member for Thomson, namely, that Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia. It is quite likely that when they moved this resolution yesterday, at the back of their minds they did think that the union of these five territories is hostile to their concept of Malaysia. It is rather stupid of the so-called socialists to consider such a union of our five territories as a military threat to Indonesia. Sir, we are not soldiers in this House. It is pretty obvious even from common sense that to be a military threat to any country, first of all, we must have the means, the wherewithal, the arms, the forces which can be poised to attack. There are only 10 million people in the five territories of the proposed State of Malaysia and there are 96 million people, in Indonesia. Can 10 million people of the future State of Malaysia be a threat to 96 million Indonesians? Why should such a concept of Malaysia be a threat to Indonesia? If there are powers to threaten Indonesia, it must be the colonial powers. The Indonesians know it themselves. It was the Dutch. We supported a motion in which we agreed to the Indonesian claim to West Irian. That was because Dutch colonialism was a threat to Indonesia. But 10 million people in Malaysia cannot be a threat to 96 million Indonesians. Let me quote a statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia during the debate on West Irian in the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November, 1961. This is what Dr Subandrio said: `We are not only disclaiming the territories outside the former Netherlands East Indies, though they are of the same island, but more than that, when Malaya told us of her intentions to merge with the three British Crown Colonies of Sarawak, Brunei and British North Borneo as one Federation, we told them that we have no objections and that we wish them success with this merger so that every one may live in peace and freedom.' "So that every one may live in peace and freedom." That is what Malaysia intends to do: that Malaysia will live side by side in peace with the Great Republic of Indonesia. We have no intention of liberating other territories; we have no intention of aggrandizement. How then can Malaysia be a threat to Indonesia, when the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Subandrio, stated in the General Assembly that his country wished that this merger, i.e., Malaysia, will meet with success? Who are the people who adopt the stand against Malaysia? Last Wednesday, the Straits Times published a resolution moved by the P.K.I. opposing Malaysia. It is pretty obvious to all people who can add one and one are two and not three, that not only the Barisan Sosialis, but those who were in charge of this so-called Malaysian Socialist Conference in Kuala Lumpur were doing nothing but purely taking up the P.K.I. line. It is a sad thing, Mr Speaker, that a group of people should seize upon the word "socialist" and proclaim themselves also as democrats when at the Kuala Lumpur Conference those who were in charge of that meeting refused to agree to discuss a paper on Malaysia submitted by the PAP. The so-called democrats at the Socialist Conference were afraid of the facts and arguments which would argue for the cause of Malaysia. Because of that, an extraordinary statement was issued that the P.A.P. bad prejudged the issue. But it is really the other way round. Is it not possible that those who wanted that conference to oppose Malaysia had also prejudged the issue? In fact, they were prepared to receive papers or to listen to speeches which were against Malaysia. These are the so-called democrats and so-called socialists who refuse to agree to even allow a delegation, an invited delegate, at their conference to speak on what was considered a basis for the argument that Malaysia should be founded as soon as possible. In fact, the P.A.P. went to the Conference just as much as we went to the C.P.A. Solidarity Consultative Conference with the understanding that those who attended the meeting would agree on the idea of Malaysia. It was called a Malaysian Socialist Conference to discuss Malaysia. Certainly, Sir, if we had known right from the beginning that that conference had no intention at all of accepting Malaysia, then it would have been correct for us not to attend that meeting, hut to decline the invitation. We do not wish to attend a meeting where the idea is to disagree. We wish to attend a meeting of parties where agreement can be reached. It was a sad case indeed that we misjudged the intentions of those who organised that conference in Kuala Lumpur. We had accepted in good faith that they would receive the idea of Malaysia and would put out concrete proposals how socialists in Malaysia could come together to help to advance the cause of Malaysia. Instead my colleagues to the delegation, the Minister for Culture, the Parliamentary Secretary to the `Minister for Education, Mr Devan Nair, Mr Jek Yuen Thong, Inche Rahim Ishak, were treated with a show of booing and shouts of, "Go back to Singapore!" The Member for Queenstown, who is not here now, took great delight in this Chamber just now that my colleague, the Minister for Culture, was booed at. But it just shows, Mr Speaker, the rude and crude manners of the Barisan Sosialis -

P.A.P. talking about manners!

Here at least we can conduct a meeting where we allow people to speak and we do not resort to booing. But this is Barisan civilisation, Barisan culture, Barisan manners - rude and crude. We were shouted at, "Go back to Singapore!" I, for one, would say, Mr Speaker, I am glad that my delegation came back to Singapore where proceedings can be carried out in a more civilized manner than in Kuala Lumpur. We do not treat our guests as if they were lepers to be booed at. Sir, even lepers at Sungei Buloh are treated with good care. If you are a guest, you are a guest. You expect some hospitality, some kindness and not to have a group of ruffians placed in the gallery to boo, heckle and Shout, "Go back to Singapore!" This was a socialist conference. I thought. Sir, socialists are gentlemen. I am quite sure this is not part of Marx's or Lenin's teachings of socialism. These are people who are immature and infantile -

Hitler.

- who tried to practise their own ideas of socialism, who want to be two marks above Marx and three marks above Lenin, and four marks above Stalin. That is the Barisan and their colleagues who organised that conference in Kuala Lumpur -

Go back, the P.A.P.!

Sir, there is one very significant point at that meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The P.A.P. may have been condemned and expelled by that socialist meeting. May I say this also: that the Member for Anson was not present at the last day of the meeting of the conference. Was he expelled? Was he condemned? Perhaps the Barisan could answer it. He was not present on the last day of the conference when these resolutions were carried out -

Seconded by the Workers' Party.

That is what I say. It is with very great regret indeed that today we are debating a motion which has been amended by the Member for Anson. U.M.N.O., S.P.A., the United People's Party, the P.A.P. have agreed to accept the amended motion proposed by the Member for Anson -

The Chairman of the Workers' Party.

The Chairman of the Workers' Party. It is a matter for great regret indeed. I feel very sorry for the Member for Anson in that his delegation should go along and take a different stand behind his back. A great pity indeed, Mr Speaker. I sympathise with him and I hope that he will learn his lesson, just as we have learnt our lesson. Sir, the P.A.P. has been expelled. And why? "Ha, ha! The P.A.P. has been expelled! They are more socialists! Ha, ha! I am hereby expelled!" Sir, -

Order. I was wondering how the Official Reporter is going to report that sentence. [Laughter] Dr Toh.

I think the world must be tickled with laughter to hear who should decide who should be sodalists. Is it God who should decide who is a socialist and who is a non-socialist? Or is the Member for Nee Soon or the Member for Queenstown or the Barisan who should decide who should be a socialist and who should be a non-socialist? -

The P.A.P. should decide.

The Barisan will decide.

It is quite clear. Their argument is this: the P.A.P. went to the conference in Kuala Lumpur to uphold the principle and concept of Malaysia, whereas the others - the seven so-called socialist Parties - were against Malaysia. Therefore, those who are against Malaysia are socialists. Those who are for Malaysia are not socialists. That is -

P.A.P. logic.

- the logic of that conference at Kuala Lumpur - reductio ad absurdum. Sir, we could not care less what grandiose statement, or resolution that conference at Kuala Lumpur issued on our expulsion. We could not care less. We know that there are bigger people behind the scenes controlling the conference. The Chairman of the Conference himself admitted that he attended - here, may I quote from the Straits Times: `Inche Ishak added: "I went to Indonesia not because my Party sent me or my Party paid for me, hut to learn and to see for myself."' Quite correct - Chairman of Labour Party. Inche Ishak, Chairman of Party Raakyat, Inche Boestamam, attended a Parti Indo conference, a conference of Party Indonesia. I put it to the House, supposing I, or any of my colleagues, had attended a political meeting organised by some foreign country and we came back here, would we be dubbed as nationalists? Do we fight really for the benefit and welfare of Singapore, Malaya and Malaysia? Do we or do we not? The inference is quite clear. A conference was held of Parti Indo in Jakarta sometime in December, attended by the Chairman of Party Raakyat, the Chairman of the Labour Party has admitted in this statement. Suddenly we find a change in the line on Malaysia. What other conclusions can we draw other than that the line was laid down in Jakarta? It is not the Member for Nee Soon who, I hope, is going to speak after me, who decides what the Barisan line is, or his colleagues sitting down there. The big chaps who will decide the Barisan line are not in this chamber. They are outside. I say that our Barisan Members in this Chamber are just puppets and stooges, and I feel sorry for them because, at least, when they were in the P.A.P. we had weekly Assemblymen's meeting where they could criticise us and scold us for any shortcomings, and they could at least try to have a say in formulating the Party line. But these poor 13 Assemblymen are now stranded like fish amidst a flotsam on the shore. I feel sorry for them indeed. So it is very clear that the Barisan, like the six other so-called socialist Parties at this Kuala Lumpur Conference, are just adopting the P.K.I. resolution moved on 31st December, or, at least, issued on 31st December. We could understand why the Member for Thomson, Mr Bani, at two successive meetings of the C.P.A. Solidarity Consultative meeting in Kuching and Kuala Lumpur, did not attack the idea of Malaysia. It look one week for that resolution moved by the P.K.I. to filter down to Singapore -

Now, he will attack it.

- and then it was adopted. That was the tactic, the line, the direction given that is now being adopted by the Barisan. I will say that the P.A.P. first and foremost is a nationalist Party. I can say this for me and for a good number of my colleagues, that we formed the Party to fight colonialism because we were nationalists and against British colonialism. We are still nationalists and we have always put the cause of nationalism first. We put party ideology second. I say that the Barisan Sosialis is not a nationalist Party. It is prepared to sacrifice the interest of the people of Malaysia in the interest of the Communist ideology. In other words, they are prepared to be a stooge of the P.K.I. They were all for the liberation of West Irian. They were very enthusiastic indeed. They were very keen to liberate West Irian. They put up three girls as a front - as the vanguard. The women are the vanguard and the men are the rearguard. The Barisan Sosialis were very keen to liberate West Irian. But when it comes to the interest of the people of Singapore, the long-term interest of the heterogenous people who live in the territories which we call Malaysia - the Malays, the Chinese, the Indians, the Dyaks and the Ibans - the people in the Barisan Sosialis say that such a concept is anti-Indonesian, it is a military threat to Indonesia and that, instead, Indonesia should be the heartland of Malaysia. We can see from their gimmicks that they have thoroughly exposed themselves, that they are not a nationalist Party, and that they are prepared to sacrifice the people of Singapore to some other foreign power. 7.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I stood up in this House and, in all seriousness, made a profound pronouncement -

Written by somebody else.

- that in order to study the English language one must first learn to read the English alphabet, more people than you, Sir, would think that I have suddenly developed a link in my head. For what, Sir? For what I have sought to pronounce in all seriousness is but a simple home truth, one so true that to reiterate it in this Chamber would certainly appear ridiculous. But when it comes to matters a little more complicated, many people begin to see only the wood and lose sight completely of the trees. Having sat for the last four days now in this Chamber listening to words both articulate and eloquent, I am convinced that many of the highest intellectual order can succumb to the malady of losing sight of the fundamental principles in the field of minutiae.

Of how to betray your country.

Sir, this motion before the House seeks support in principle for the Plan proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Tunku Abdul Rahman, and agreed to in principle in the Federal Parliament on 18th October, 1961 -

Did the Socialist Front agree?

- for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia. In moving his motion in the Federal Parliament on 16th October last year, the Tunku made it abundantly clear that insofar as Singapore was concerned the new Federation of Malaysia meant the admittance of Singapore into the proposed new Federation on the basis of the P.A.P. proposed merger. In order not to misunderstood, the Tunku went on in some detail to clarify the word "merger" used in the context of his speech in Parliament that day. He said - and this is to be found in the Straits Times of 17th October, 1961, at page 10: `I would like to say at this point that the word "merger" has generally come to be accepted as a way of expressing the future integration of constitutional relations between the Federation and Singapore. But let us not forget that the broader concept of Malaysia of course is a merger too, hut on a larger scale.' He continued to say: `Therefore when I refer to "merger", it will be directly in relation to Singapore and also to Malaysia because merger with Singapore is an essential part of the Malaysia ideal.'. Sir, in the new proposed Malaysia, Singapore cannot be accepted on the basis of equality and proportionate representation. This has been established as a fact. Singapore would only be admitted on the basis of partnership in Command Paper No. 33 of 1961 which sets out the heads of agreement for a merger between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. In the first page of this document, Sir, the Prime Minister of Singapore, in his letter to the Prime Minister of the Federation, made it very clear that he understood that Malaysia meant the participation of Singapore on the basis of P.A.P. merger contained in this White Paper, for he had written in his letter to the Tunku - I quote: `My dear Prime Minister, 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...'- making it very clear that insofar as Singapore is concerned, merger and Malaysia is one and the same thing. Yet, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is this strange attempt to pass off Malaysia as something quite different from the P.A.P. merger, and the more surprising part of the story is that there were people gullible enough to swallow this line. Sir, we have seen Members who outright rejected Command Paper No. 33 of 1961 in this House and yet supported this motion after making high-falutin speeches in support of a vague concept which was never meant to apply. The concept of bringing smaller nations together under a planned economy for the mutual betterment and upliftment of each other is laudable and is in keeping with socialist thinking and is something that no socialist can reject. But, is planned economy the objective of the proposed Malaysia? No, it is not. And all honest people know and say that it is not. But then, how is that that certain self-proclaimed socialists still support this Plan? There must be quite a lot of political confusion in this House on this issue. But then, Sir, political confusion does not seem to be anything new in this House, for during the debate on the motion on merger moved by the Minister for Labour, we had witnessed how adept and expertly the Member for Cairnhill, who has just left the Chamber, was in the art of turning political somersaults. He had so very fiercely attacked the Government for calling something that was obviously not a merger a merger, and when it came to an amendment expressing his doubts in a positive form, he rejected it. 7.25 p.m.

It now appears, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill is not alone in this House in the art of being politic. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is my intention to develop my arguments in three phases on this motion. Firstly, I want to show that as far as Singapore is concerned, Malaysia means P.A.P. merger, and P.A.P. merger means Malaysia. I hope I have made my point very clear and will not want to further labour the House on the obvious. So far as we in the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, we are consistent in our political stand. We have rejected the P.A.P. merger as contained in Command Paper No. 33 of 1961. We therefore are now moral-bound and honour-bound to reject this motion before the House. Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir -

The P.K.I. has said no Malaysia.

- I intend to trace the political background that led to the P.A.P. merger and the concept of Malaysia insofar as the Minister for Finance has given this House his side of the story - though it was quite uncalled for, because what he said were the second-hand extracts from the Prime Minister's broadcast talks recently. In view of this, Sir, I am sure the House will hear me out with indulgence. Further, the Minister for Finance was reiterating propaganda material which has already been tabled in this House and distributed to all Members in the form of a booklet named The Battle for Merger. Talking about propaganda booklets, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am reminded of the story told to me of the embarrassment of the United States Information Service in Hongkong not so very long ago. The U.S.I.S. used to produce a lot of propaganda booklets for distribution in Hongkong and other South-East Asian countries. They were extremely pleased with themselves when they found that as soon as the booklets were produced they went out of circulation and reprints had to go into press. But after some time, they discovered that nobody seemed to have heard of - far less read of - the information contained in those booklets and it was only after a great deal of trouble and investigation that they found, to their great dismay, that some enterprising paper-mill had taken care of all their publications!

Some of your henchmen carry it around.

The propaganda booklets had met their inglorious end in the pulping machine of the paper-mill. And the mess of printing ink and paper pulp, after being duly treated and bleached, was remade into white paper. The paper mill owner was, I am told, by no means a Communist or even a pro-Communist. On the contrary, he was a real and true capitalist. He was quite ready to explore and exploit every avenue that could bring in profit. But the Americans in Hongkong had some decency left, for they did not attempt to smear the owner of the paper-mill as a Communist. Quite unlike the P.A.P., Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In the third part of my argument, I would like to retrace some of the events that transpired after the Tunku made his proposals and of the Communist and pro-Communist smear of the P.A.P. against all those who did not see eye to eye with them. Now, Sir, I will begin where the Minister for Finance passed off. It is a pity he is not in the House now. I will begin in the pre-general elections era when the P.A.P. was supposed to be at the peak of political good fortune. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I was alleged to have joined the P.A.P. at the height of its popularity and scooted on the day when the fortunes of the P.A.P. were at its lowest ebb. Obviously, Sir, the purpose of the allegation is to brand me as an opportunist, for character assassination is the spearhead of the vicious smear campaign of the P.A.P. The leaders of the P.A.P. knew that it would be laying it on too thick if I were called a Communist.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

Fair enough.

Has the Member forgotten he told me that he did not think that even if he applied for membership, the Communists would accept him because he did not have enough iron in his stomach?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my point is exactly that, because the Prime Minister knew it would be laying it on too thick to brand me as a Communist. He had to invent some other name. I am not here to prove that I am not a Communist. I do not care whether they call me a Communist. The Prime Minister knows he cannot get away with it if he calls me a Communist. So I was labelled an opportunist. And he has just made the point clearer than I can put forward. To put the record straight, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a pity that the Minister for Home Affairs is not here, for he will know the truth.

He is only interested in men with iron in their stomachs.

I had been in the P.A.P. since 1957 and was re-registered during the second phase of re-registration in the Party in 1958. I am sure the Prime Minister will remember that his authority in those days was never respected by the Changi Branch and that it was I who, after re-registration in the P.A.P., was appointed Secretary to the Branch -

Order. I hope the Member can satisfy the Chair, but right now I find it difficult to understand how all this fits in with the motion we are now debating. It is quite all right for the Member just to clarify remarks, if any, made by the Government Benches; but if he goes too much into the details of his personal conduct in the P.A.P. and so on, then he is completely out of order.

With great respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I pursued my line, I made it very clear that the Minister for Finance had taken a great deal of time in this House to explain the political background that led to the split in the P.A.P. and subsequently to the disagreement over Malaysia. I have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that in view of his remarks and in view of the act that the Prime Minister had thought fit to make a series of 12 broadcast talks about us, and in view of the fact that a new book entitled The Battle far Merger is now being published and tabled, I am sure this House would be indulgent enough to hear me say my little piece. I will not be very long, Sir.

If the Minister for Finance has explained the historical background of the split that led to the formation of the Barisan Sosialis, that is not anything personal about the Member for Nee Soon. So if the Member likes to touch on that, he can briefly touch on the background of the split.

With great respect, Sir, I will take your advice. I am sure the Prime Minister will remember that his authority was never respected in the Changi Branch before the general elections, and it was I who helped him to steer the Committee and to help him get the committee to accept certain of his directives.

Pshaw! Come on!

He seems to have a very short memory. It is more accurate, Sir, to say that I joined the P.A.P. during a very difficult period in the P.A.P. I joined the Changi Branch when there was a crisis in the Branch. And it was the people like me and all the candidates together who helped the P.A.P. win the elections; certainly not the Minister for Education Who has also been called the Asian expatriate among insurance circles. Perhaps his memory will not be too short too. It might be pertinent, Sir, to mention that when I left the Party, I left it when it was in government.

You were expelled; you did not leave the Party.

And it is not too pretentious, Sir, to add that when I was in the Party, I was then in the good books of the Prime Minister, much to the discomfiture -

Order. I still cannot follow how all this fits in with the motion which we are now debating. I have already made my ruling, that if the Member for Nee Soon wishes to touch on the background of the split between the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P., it is all right. But if he goes into the details of his personal conduct in the P.A.P., then it is completely irrelevant.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg your indulgence to let me say two more sentences. It is not that I want to show what a good chap I am. I do not intend to do that. The important thing is that the P.A.P. myth that all those in the Barisan Sosialis are either Communists or opportunists must be burst, punctured, and exploded. And it is for that purpose that I have reiterated my political association -

Sir, on another point of information. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

Has the Member for Nee Soon forgotten that a few days ago, before the vote of confidence in this Chamber, When he abstained and subsequently was expelled for it, he told me that he saw no way out because there was a collision coming between the Communists and the P.A.P., that he did not want to be involved, and that he would like to retire from politics?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that was only part of it.

Well, tell the whole lot.

Sir, if you will allow me the indulgence of going through the whole lot in the House - if you give inc that undertaking, Sir - I will certainly tell the whole lot.

Order. I do not think it is right for the Chair to let the House hear the personalities between the Prime Minister and the Member for Nee Soon. Perhaps it would be better for the Member to proceed with the motion.

I am much obliged. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Thank you for the ruling. I will look for another opportunity to tell my part of the story.

Better write a book.

Unfortunately I cannot afford the extravagance of having it printed.

Order. Will the Member please proceed? Perhaps it would be convenient for the Member to address the Chair and ignore interjections.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will attempt to turn round and look at you and, at the same time, refer to my notes. Sir, the basic P.A.P. political philosophy in Singapore is that for the one man one vote system to operate in Singapore, only Left-swing political Parties may get a hearing from the people. The P.A.P. therefore took a Left-wing political stand to get into power. Once in power, they were forced to discard their political mask, for there was the weight of the Right-wing reactionary opinion that had to be accommodated. The more accommodating they made themselves to the Right-wing reactionary forces, the more unsure the P.A.P. leadership felt themselves vis-a-vis the masses. And every reaction of the masses brought to their attention became the shadow or substance of the Communist line. There was practically a pathological fear, in the hearts of the P.A.P. leadership, of the electorate who returned them to office. The Prime Minister was heard to comment on many occasions that if the system of democracy as interpreted into one man one vote was to be operated, in the sense of the word it would lead us all to ruination. I myself, Sir, would have used the word "ruin". Even my friends from Sarawak have heard his utterances in this respect and have had the benefit of his advice to do something about it in Sarawak since the system of one man one vote is not yet operative there. As fear began to grip the imagination of the P.A.P. leadership, they began to lose their sense of proportion. As the popularity of the Party and of the Government dwindled from day to day, they decided that they would throw the ball hack to the people, particularly after Hong Lim, for then they hoped going to the country would kill two birds with one stone. For in doing so it would also have saved the face of the Prime Minister from the sound thrashing he received in Hong Lim.

You campaigned too.

Oh, yes, unfortunately, and fortunately not effective enough. [Interruption] I am coming to that.

Please proceed

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with a great deal of respect.. I shall proceed. We consider that while we were in the P.A.P. we had been elected to fulfil an election pledge to the people.

You chaps did not want to resign.

Our main task was to pave the way for a socialist Society. If in the performance of our task we had met with difficulties - no doubt we had - we should try to overcome those difficulties.

You have got no guts.

And failing so, explain our failings to the people. To throw our hands up and say "We quit", was no solution to our sacred task. For the next socialist government would then be confronted with even more difficult obstacles. It was then that those of us now in the Barisan Sosialis began not to see eye to eye with the P.A.P. leadership. We felt the paramount interest is the interest of the people.

And decided to take over.

No, we never decided that.

So that you could become Prime Minister.

No. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister and his associates felt that the interests of the ruling clique of the P.A.P. must take precedence over everything else, even that of the people, and so they decided to resign and we opposed the resignation. At the Party conference called to discuss this matter, our view prevailed, and it was agreed that we should postpone the matter till after the Anson by-election. In the meantime, the Prime Minister and his associates felt a deep pang of anxiety, for they had lost their iron grip on the hand-picked cadres - cadres hand-picked by the Prime Minister himself under the provisions of certain safeguards written into the P.A.P. Constitution. They were perturbed, Sir, that another section of opinion could have so easily prevailed over their own. What was even more disturbing was the fact that that section of opinion was led by Assemblymen and Organising Secretaries who were at that moment the only cadre members of the P.A.P. This meant that if anything came up to the properly constituted cadre conference, the Prime Minister and his associates, unless they mended their ways, could easily be defeated by the supreme authority of the Party. The cadre conference thus gave them the jitters. For they were left with the choice of one of two roads. They could either return to the path of socialism or split the ranks of the socialists. The open fight between the genuine socialists -

And the Communists!

- and fake socialists began. Those who disagreed with the Prime Minister and his associates - Rightist deviation - were regarded as anti-Party and had to be crushed at all costs. Those of us who had joined the P.A.P. for our ideological convictions and not for cushy jobs were in a dilemma. We could neither accept au fait the Prime Minister's policy of Rightist deviation nor the open split in the ranks of the socialists. We argued with the Prime Minister about the folly of his moves and tried -

On a point of elucidation. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

Dr Goh.

Could the Member just explain what he meant by Rightist deviation and where he got that term from?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will recall that when the Prime Minister got up to interrupt me, I explained that I would be quite pleased to do that provided you would be indulgent enough to let me paint the whole background.

Order. I have indicated to the House that the Member for Nee Soon could reply to the statement made by the Minister for Finance. And so far he had made the point very clear, that is the reason for the split in the P.A.P. But if the Member is going into too many details, then he is completely out of order. So far the Member has made his point very clear. I hope lie will go on with the motion which we are debating today.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, instead of listening to us, he called us Communist stooges. In his frenzied state of mind, he saw in every shadow a Communist threat. Instead of trying to see our point of view, he deliberately blunted his previously acute mind to make believe that we were either naive or opportunistic. What was more unfortunate, Sir, was that those of us who were with him then, because we understood the difficulties of being in government and sympathised with him and tried with reasonableness to convince him of the wrongness of his policy, were slowly being regarded as his political enemies which we had never meant to be. Sir, with the abruptness of the lightning symbol of the P.A.P., the purge was crashed into top gear. Those of us -

Thank you.

Thank you, I am very happy, Mr Deputy Speaker -

Order. The hon. Member for Nee Soon should, as far as possible, try to avoid these interjections and concentrate on his speech. If the Member wants to make cross-talk across the Floor, then he is inviting more interjections from the Government side. Will he please proceed with the debate on the motion?

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But when compliments are being hurled this way, it is only right for me to bow in acknowledgement. Now that the Minister for Finance has just discovered my latent talents, I must be very elated. Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Order.

I will put it down in writing!

Thank you.

Compliment from Woodhull!

Those of us who were then in office had to choose between sticking to our political convictions or to seek comfort and consolation in cushy jobs.

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order.

I do not see any relevance in all those remarks.

Order. I have made the point very clear. Since the Minister for Finance has gone into this, I have given the Member for Nee Soon ample time to reply. If the Member for Nee Soon is going into too many details on this controversial subject of the split in the P.A.P., then I think he is completely out of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was just about to finish.

Thank God!

My personal decision to quit Government was not a very difficult one. I had joined the Party from my ideological convictions, and being a professional man, I would not and could not be unemployed if I left the Government. But, Sir, my colleagues who had to face an indefinite period of unemployment had no qualms at all about quitting their comfortable jobs. For that, Sir, I saluted them in silence. The P.A.P. leadership, now in the last throes of its death struggle -

Are you mad?

- have suddenly found a new viable group on their left, and, by logical displacement, they have, therefore, themselves become Right. It meant political suicide to go to the country. So the election pledge at Anson was conveniently forgotten. An all-out onslaught was made on the Barisan Sosialis. The only good way left to them to kill the Barisan Sosialis was by labelling them as Communists. An hon. Member: Barisan Communists.

- and take care of it under the P.P.S.O. That was not going to be a difficult task, if the Federation Government would play ball. The Prime Minister stated quite categorically in the Fourth Anniversary Souvenir that the Alliance leaders make no clear distinction between democratic socialists and Communists. Anything Left is viewed with apprehension. For anything Left is thought to be Communist or potential Communist and, therefore, that was a convenient concept to use against the Barisan. Malaysia, Sir, was the first concrete step taken by the P.A.P. to fix the new viable Left.

On a point of information. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

Sir, the concept of Malaysia was announced long before the Barisan Sosialis was formed.

Sir, if I were to argue that point, I could easily argue that the concept of Barisan Sosialis came about long before the Barisan Sosialis -

Please continue.

Sir, having spoken of the viable Left, I feel it necessary to give my understanding of its meaning in this House so that I may not be misunderstood. I anticipated that the Minister for Finance would misunderstand the meaning of the word.

I thought we had discussed it.

Order.

I use the term "viable Left" to mean and to cover all Left-wing political forces in this country which are definitely not Communist. The Communists cannot be politically viable in Singapore because the Communist Party is outlawed. The P.A.P. has always maintained that the ultimate contenders in the Singapore political arena would be the P.A.P. and the M.C.P. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

This statement is made with the fullest force. I hear echoes from the Back-benches. It is made with the fullest force so that should any challenge to the P.A.P. come from the Left, it could always be labelled as Communist. We now see the coming to fruition of that diabolical plot. The fact that the Barisan Sosialis is the only Left-wing more Left than the P.A.P. today, and only as Left as the P.A.P. was Left before it formed the Government, has become a thorn in the flesh of the P.A.P. Whatever the P.A.P. may say to the contrary, whatever irrelevant remarks their Back-benches make, that will not be worth a rebut. The people will know who is socialist and who is not socialist. A general election will settle the matter easily and conveniently. If I am a fake, I will be thrown out of this House. An hon. Member: You will!

Let us go to the country and see who gets thrown out. I do not mind if I am thrown out. I am sure other more genuine socialists, so to speak, will take my place here. But when fake socialists are thrown out -

Order. The Member for Nee Soon is inviting more interjections and counter arguments from the Government side. I have already indicated to him to address the Chair and not to Members of the Government side.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, ever since the Hong Lim by-election, the P.A.P. was looking for a good issue to throw back to the people. But the choice of the issue is a very delicate matter. The issue must appear to be a nationalist issue so that all the people would support it. More important still, Sir, was that the issue must weigh heavily in favour of the P.A.P., so that should a referendum be taken, the P.A.P. could consider a renewal of its mandate if the electorate voted for it. Merger was thought to be such an issue. But after preliminary tests were made of the ground reaction, the Government was not too confident. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am suggesting that the Government is seriously thinking of using Malaysia as an issue. The play-up for Malaysia in recent days is apparent. One has just to step out of the Assembly to see the gaudy decorations around the circus and in front of the town hall. There are multi-coloured posters all over the place. The play-up for Malaysia can only be said to be stupendous in Singapore. Malaysia is now peddled around by the P.A.P. as the panacea that would cure all the ills of the people. We saw the Prime Minister running around, Kuala Lumpur to Kuching; Kuching to Bangkok; Bangkok to Saigon. He went all over the place trying to sell the idea of Malaysia. But, Sir, when it came to a conference of genuine socialists -

On a point of elucidation. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

Is the Member suggesting that I am a salesman for Malaysia in Bangkok -

Order. Moment of interruption. Mr Byrne.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Mr Byrne]. Sitting accordingly adjourned at Eight o'clock p.m.