Hansard, 1962-01-30

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang) - 29th January, 1962. Mr David Marshall (Anson) - from 29th to 31st January, 1962. Mr Tan Kia Gan (Paya Lebar), Minister for National Development - from 30th January to 3rd February, 1962.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate.

The original Question, as amended, was: "That, in pursuance of the national objective of a united Malayan nation, enlarged and strengthened by the addition of our brothers in the Borneo territories, this House declares its support in principle for the plan proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, and agreed to in principle in the Federation Parliament on 18th October, 1961, for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising the eleven States of the present Federation, the States of Singapore and Brunei, and the territories of Sarawak and North Borneo.". Since which amendments have been moved, In line 4, to leave out "plan" and insert "motion"; In line 6, to leave out "in principle". The Question is, "That the word `plan' proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate will proceed on both amendments and the original Question, as amended. 2.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment of interruption yesterday, I was tracing the political background that led to the split in the P.A.P. and subsequently to the concept of Malaysia in Singapore. I was interrupted when I was saying that Malaysia is now peddled about by the P.A.P. as a panacea to cure all the ills of the people. We saw the Prime Minister running from Kuala Lumpur to Sarawak selling the idea to the people, including Bangkok, Saigon and other various places - [Interruption]. I beg your pardon, Bangkok. I was interrupted by the Prime Minister who sought information as to whether I was suggesting that he was selling the idea in Bangkok, and my reply to him, Sir, I thought, was not caught by the microphone. So I might repeat it. I told him if he felt the cap fitted, he could put it on. I have no objections. But, Sir, when it came to a conference of genuine socialists in Kua1a Lumpur, the Prime Minister never showed up -

Genuine Communists.

We have all seen how disgracefully the P.A.P. conducted itself and how subsequently it was expelled.

Yes. Barisan manners.

The P.A.P. had great hopes in Malaysia, for not only would it be expected to help the P.A.P. to cure all its political ills, but also if and when it should come to fruition, the P.A.P. cou1d hope to drop its political socialist mask once and for all. Sir, coming to the third phase of my argument, I find that there is very little left for me to say -

Thank goodness!

- except to remark that my colleagues have almost fully covered the ground. The P.A.P.'s line is that the Communists reject Malaysia and therefore all who reject Malaysia are Communists - An hon. Member: Nonsense.

Suffice it for me to mention, Sir, that the connivance of the Straits Times in playing up the P.K.I. resolution on the day this motion was moved in this House was sufficient evidence of a reactionary ganging-up and for the purposes of smearing the Barisan Sosialis -

You mean the P.K.I. ganging up with the reactionary forces?

The Straits Times and the reactionary forces have been ganging up with the P.A.P. -

Are you suggesting Alex Josey?

You live with him any way.

Order. I have heard of P. A.P. traps and so on and so forth. It seems to me that the P.A.P. are setting a trap into which the Member for Nee Soon is falling. He should ignore these pleasantries - I suppose they are still pleasantries up to this stage - and address the Chair if he can.

Sir, with great respect, I think those who set traps might very well themselves fall into counter-traps. That is why I thought if anybody tried to trap me, I might have a go at trying to trap them. To say that people who live in the same house do not gang up is a little bit far-fetched. Anyway, I have personally known both Mr Alex Josey and the Minister for Culture quite well. I understand how they feel about each other, particularly when Mr Alex Josey is here today.

Sir, on a point of information -

Order. I have already indicated that any Member speaking from the Floor of this House must not make any direct reference to any person in the Strangers' Gallery. The Member for Nee Soon has been guilty of ignoring that direction from the Chair.

My apologies, Sir. The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

Do I understand the Member therefore to condemn Mr Josey, Mr Rajaratnam and Comrade Aidit for being in a conspiracy to do the Barisan Sosialis harm?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is so far-fetched a possibility that I will not waste the time of this House arguing about it. But if the Prime Minister would like to hear more of it, he is invited to attend our mass rally tonight and we shall let him hear more about it. In the meantime, I do not think it is fair to burden you with this political battle between us and the P.A.P. The right place would be at a mass rally where the people who are to judge us would be listening to us directly, and we extend a very heartfelt and warm welcome to the Prime Minister to attend, if for any reason at all to get back his anti-colonial fervour. Sir, the Malayan Socialist Conference has ended during the weekend. We have seen how the P.A.P. behaved to fellow socialists in Malaya and the Borneo territories. I need only read the resolution passed unanimously to show that they are no more socialists, as the Member for Cairnhill has just murmured. The resolution unanimously passed by the conference reads as follows. Sir, I am reading the Straits Times of Monday, 29th January, 1962 -

Colonial paper.

Quite so, quite so!

Then why do you read from it?

Order.

I quote: '... "This conference regards that the P.A.P. had staged a walk-out 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 [today] and are hereby expelled."' - [Laughter] it is not very funny. If the Prime Minister thinks it is very funny, perhaps he might like to ask the people who will ultimately judge him to see whether it is so funny. When the Deputy Prime Minister had the Floor yesterday, he was kind enough to read out one of the resolutions passed and neglected all the rest. For purposes of the record, Sir - An hon. Member: Read the whole of it.

- it is my privilege here to read only the resolutions mentioned in the Straits Times, and I shall not bother with the background that led to the P.A.P.'s expulsion -

Order. If the extracts are to illustrate what the hon. Member is saying, then it is all right. But if it is just for the sake of reading extracts, I think the easiest way is to table that paper and Members will be able to read the extracts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because there is a direct relationship between the resolutions and the motion that is before the House today, I think it is very relevant that I should read it.

The hon. Member does not know Standing Order 48 (d). It reads: `During a sitting -

With great respect, Sir, I think that position can never obtain in this House in so far as you, Sir, who are so vigilant in parliamentary matters, are in the Chair. I shall now read only the relevant parts which are related to this motion. Amongst other things, the conference also passed resolutions which: `CONDEMNED the three previous Consultative Solidarity Committee meetings on the Malaysian proposals on the ground that the delegates to these meetings in Sahah, Sarawak and Kuala Lumpur "represented their own selves and the British interests;" DEMANDED that the Federation, Singapore and the British Governments stop these consultative meetings on Malaysia;'. The third one was read by the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not intend to repeat. `CALLED for a closer association of the Malaysian peoples based on recognition of the right of self-determination of the peoples of Malaysia; SUPPORTED the principles of the Afro-Asian conference, especially against colonialism and for world peace and disarmament; CONDEMNED any move to force through the Malaysian plan without first obtaining the consent of the Borneo peoples, and CRITICISED the British Government, saying that it had no right to negotiate on Malaysia in the name of the Borneo territories.'. In today's paper, Sir, we have read a joint communique signed by all the socialist Parties issued at the end of the meeting. It reads, Sir, in page 24 of the Straits Times: `Seven socialist Parties said in a joint communique today that constitutional changes should not be made without the express consent of the people. The communique also said that there was an intense propaganda campaign to rush through a constitutional arrangement for Malaysia that was not in harmony with the sentiments and aspirations of the people, who had been given little opportunity to genuinely express their views. Instead, there appeared to be a deliberate attempt to by-pass the people. On the Federation/Singapore merger, it said: "Considering the present state of political growth in the Federation, the Conference realises that the conditions are not favourable for a full and complete merger and, therefore, supports the desire of the people of Singapore for self-determination."'. Sir, the socialists in the Malaysian territories have gathered and they have made their pronouncements on Malaysia. We in the Barisan Sosialis are one hundred per cent behind the pronouncements made by the Socialist Conference. We therefore reject the motion. 2.46 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, for several days we have heard Members of this Assembly speaking on this Malaysia motion. The Members of the Barisan Sosialis spoke of theories which they gathered from the textbooks of Lenin. As we all know, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis deserted the P.A.P. when their position in the P.A.P. became untenable, in the hope that the P.A.P. would be paralysed, because the Barisan Sosialis prefer to indulge in violent politics. I ask them whether this is in accordance with democratic practice. The answer is `No'. It is clearly a Communist tactic. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me speak on simple political matters so that the Barisan Sosialis and the people may easily understand the difference between the political stand of the P.A.P., which is for a non-Communist, democratic and socialist Malaya, and that of the Barisan Sosialis. They indulge in deceit and falsehoods. Their intention is to hoodwink the people. I say to them that they should not have any false pride. The people cannot be fooled any more. Now it is even clearer that the Barisan Sosialis have exposed their true colours when they expound theories from the textbooks by Lenin. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Barisan Sosialis will not continue to fool the people. The people are keen on a unification of the five territories. There is a proverb which says that united we stand, divided we fall. The Malaysia proposals reflect the desire of the people in Malaysia who wish to be united. This motion has the support of all the political Parties, except of course the Barisan Sosialis who are adopting a pig-headed attitude - quoting the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. They still persist with their mischievous tactics of opposing the Malaysia proposals. In short, they are against Malaysia because they have evil intentions. In the political struggle that has been going on in this Chamber, I have heard a lot about nationalists, colonialists, Communists, and so on Everybody knows the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. The Members of this Assembly are clear in their minds as to the intentions of the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan Sosialis want to fool and hoodwink the people - particularly the people of Singapore, the Federation of Malaya, Brunei and Borneo. They have gone astray. The territories comprising Malaysia are watching with great interest the attempt of the Barisan Sosialis to mislead the people. I urge upon them not to adopt an attitude of false pride. They seem to oppose everything. They are against merger and Malaysia. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of the various territories in this region give their wholehearted support to this motion which will bring about independence. It is the duty of every citizen and every political leader who owes an undivided loyalty to the country to give his wholehearted support to this motion. The Barisan Sosialis are being used as stooges by the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion represents the wishes and desires of all the political Parties in the territories concerned. The slogans "Let Malaysia Live" and "Merdeka Malaysia" cannot be applied to the Barisan Sosialis. We should be proud of this Malaysia concept and every citizen should take an active part in its realisation. Of course, the Barisan Sosialis are trying in every way to frustrate its realisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis is just like a frog under a coconut shell. The frog thinks that the coconut shell is the world. The Barisan Sosialis are strongly opposed to the Malaysia proposals. Perhaps they would prefer the words "Chinesia" or "Communisia". They should clearly state their ideological stand in this Chamber. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu said that we still see British soldiers in Singapore and independent Malaya today. He alleged that the P.A.P. are the adopted sons of the British. It is up to the Barisan to state their stand. We in the P.A.P. strongly support this Malaysia motion because we want to see the realisation of merger and Malaysia. This is the desire and wish of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to remind the Member of the Barisan Sosialis that everyone of them is a traitor to the PAP. They cannot put their own house in order and yet they want to try to put the houses of other people in order. The Members of the Barisan Sosialis comprise traitors of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, the object of this motion can only be realised by people who are loyal to this country and are prepared to fight for it. Once again we urge the Malays in particular and the people of other races to beware of the Communist elements in the Barisan Sosialis who oppose the merger and Malaysia motions. In conclusion, I say that the Barisan Sosialis which opposes this Malaysia motion is a Party comprising people who are treacherous to this country. 2.58 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Malaysia problem is not only being discussed in this Assembly but it was also discussed in the Federation of Malaya and also at the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee meetings held in Jesselton, Kuching and Kuala Lumpur, and it will be further discussed in Singapore from the 1st to the 3rd of next month. In one of these discussions, the Member for Thomson represented the Barisan Sosialis. If the Barisan Sosialis oppose this Malaysia Plan, why is it that they requested to be represented at the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee? The resolution adopted at the Malaysian Socialist Conference held recently in Kuala Lumpur, as reported in the Berita Harian of Monday, 29th January, condemned the three previous Consultative Solidarity Committee meetings on the Malaysian proposals on the ground that the delegates to those meetings in Sabah, Sarawak, and Kuala Lumpur represented their own selves and the British interests. This, Mr Speaker, means, in effect, that the Barisan Sosialis were interested in their party interests only. The Barisan Sosialis were represented at the Malaysian Socialist Conference, and therefore they were trying to defend British interests. Mr Speaker, the Utusan Melayu of Monday, 25th December reported a speech of the President of Party Rakyat of Malaya made at a Party conference. It said that the Malaysian concept initiated by Tunku Abdul Rahman was accepted in principle by Party Rakyat. It was not a new idea, as it had been thought of by former political leaders like Ibrahim Haji Yacob. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis do not really oppose the concept of Malaysia, hut what they oppose are the fighters who initiated this Malaysian concept. Mr Speaker, the arguments are clear. As I said earlier, Party Rakyat accepted in principle this proposal as initiated by Tunku Abdul Rahman. Tunku Abdul Rahman has merely resuscitated this Malaysia concept which was mooted by Ibrahim Haji Yacob. If this Malaysia concept which we are debating today were initiated by Chin Peng, I am quite sure the Barisan Sosialis would give 100 per cent support. So the problem is not the concept of Malaysia but the people who mooted this concept. Mr Speaker, the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis say that the original aim of Malaysia is to attain the independence of Malaya, including the Malay Archipelago. With the establishment of Malaysia, Brunei will then be independent; so will Sarawak and North Borneo. They will be free from colonial clutches. Is this not one of the efforts to attain independence? If the Barisan Sosialis consider that this is not the way to get independence from the British, are they suggesting that Brunei, Sarawak, and Sabah should get independence by violent means? Mr Speaker, the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee discussed the question of Malaysia in Jesselton, Kuching, and Kuala Lumpur, and unanimously agreed that with the establishment of Malaysia, Brunei will be free from colonialism, and so will North Borneo. The statement goes on to say that, secondly, to unite all those independent countries into one single unit called Malaysia, the question of achieving independence has not been finalised yet. So the second question of integration of all the independent countries to form one Malaysia is: when will these three territories be free from British colonialism? For then only can we unite these three territories. Mr Speaker, at the moment, these territories are still under colonial rule, and independence is being achieved for them through Malaysia. Only when they are free from British colonialism can we discuss the necessity, or otherwise the merits and demerits, of uniting these three territories and whether to include Indonesia or the Philippines. That is a subsequent matter. I hope this integration will not be with the Republic of China or the U.S.S.R. Mr Speaker, the object of the Barisan Sosialis is to unite the Malaysian countries with Indonesia. I think the Barisan Sosialis are dreaming. As stated yesterday by the Minister for Health, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis issued a statement in Bintang Timur saying that one of the objects of forming Malaysia is to let it come under the influence of Indonesia. But the Indonesian Government itself has already made it clear that it has no territorial claims on other countries except to liberate West Irian. So it is clear, Mr Speaker, that if the Barisan Sosialis want Singapore or Malaysia to merge with Indonesia, I am quite sure the Indonesian Government will not accept it. Mr Speaker, all the efforts of the Barisan Sosialis reflect nothing but a Communist attitude designed to bring disaster to the people of the territories comprising Malaysia. Mr Speaker, in the Utusan Melayu of 25th December, the leaders of the Malayan socialists say: `We are not alone in our struggle to see the end of the stationing of foreign troops in Our country.'. This, Mr Speaker, says the leader of the Party Rakyat means that it is not alone in its struggle. It means that there are other important people behind it. I believe Mr Speaker knows who are those people behind Party Rakyat. They are the Barisan Sosialis, which is the front line of the M.C.P. and the P.K.I. This is obvious, Mr Speaker, when they say that they are not alone in this struggle. Therefore, all their efforts to oppose Malaysia are the result of leaders who claim to be socialists and who have contacted leaders of the P.K.I. recently. Then they came out with the decision to oppose Malaysia in a meeting of the Malaysian Socialist Conference in Kuala Lumpur. Originally, Mr Speaker, the leaders accepted the Malaysia Plan in principle. What they opposed were the people who initiated the Malaysia concept. As I said earlier, if the Malaysia that we are discussing today were initiated by Chin Peng or D. N. Aidit, I am quite sure the Barisan Sosialis would give it 100 per cent support. So. Mr Speaker, this clearly shows that the Barisan Sosialis is the channel or the vehicle and the stooge of the P.K.I. of Indonesia. Mr Speaker. I wish to inform this House that this Malaysia Plan is not a question of leaders of political Parties, but is a plan which will bring in its wake prosperity to the entire people of Malaysia. This is even more clear, Mr Speaker, when we see that the Barisan Sosialis is trying to wreck and to frustrate the prosperity of the people of Malaysia. 3.12 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker. I fully support the Malaysia Plan. I am surprised at the attitude taken by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They said that if they could not have their own way in the merger of Singapore with the Federation, they would like to get it by themselves. Are they thinking only of their own interests or are they thinking of the interests of the 1½ million people in Singapore? If we get our independence, what will happen to the welfare of the people in this island, when at this time we are dependent on the Federation Government for our trade? Do they ever think, if we get independence, what the fate of the people of Singapore would be? We would be eating ourselves, or should we eat sand? Do we not think that that is very dangerous? They always double talk. I am fed up with their talk. They do not seem to think of the interests of the people of Singapore. They only think of their own selfish interests. This is how they get Communist support. Sir, I am surprised at their attitude in fully supporting the Indonesian demand for West Irian - that that area be returned to Indonesia. Irian Barat is not independent, but when we have a plan for Malaysia, they oppose it and demand that Singapore should first of all get self-government, and then only will there be Malaysia. The people in this island cannot understand the tactics of the Barisan Sosialis, especially the way they go about bamboozling the people. We understand the Indonesian demand for West Irian. They have opposed us regarding Malaysia. They do not want us to bring about a union between Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei and the Federation of Malaya. Let us consider how their minds work. On the one hand, they oppose unification and, on the other hand, they support it. The Barisan Sosialis have always said they are genuine socialists. But if they are really genuine socialists, Mr Speaker, they will not have any discrimination between the different races. Whenever they move a motion, for instance, on education, they always talk about the Chinese and not about the other races. Do they call this the thinking of a genuine socialist? But if they are really genuine socialists, they will not have any such discrimination. What we are fighting for is the welfare of the people of Singapore and of other areas which will be united with us in the future. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have criticised Tunku Abdul Rahman. They say he is a stooge of the British. Such remarks cannot be accepted because we know fully what Tunku Abdul Rahman has done. He has done many things for the welfare of the people of the Federation. Now he is working hard to improve our country and the area around us. The Barisan Sosialis have made such assumptions. They should swallow these accusations and not say this about the Tunku. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, they do not seem to remember that not many months ago they praised him. But now they have reversed their stand and are criticising him. Do they not think that this is a wicked act - an act to split up the committees? Mr Speaker, Members of the Barisan Sosialis have said that Malaysia is sponsored by the P.A.P. I am surprised at this suggestion. Have we so much influence that we can ask the Governments of Brunei, Sabah and the Federation to follow our guidance? Are we not co-operating among ourselves to create Malaysia? But, Mr Speaker, we are not surprised because it is natural for them to have such an attitude because they want to play politics. They do not realise that if they play the wrong politics, it will burn them up. They say that the P.A.P. is not democratic and does not give freedom or liberty to the people. I think the people of Singapore understand us. We can see for ourselves that even now no other Party has followed the example of the Barisan Sosialis in putting up posters at bus-stands. This is not election time. Has any other Party done that? If we were not democratic, we would have arrested those who put up posters at the bus-stands, because this is against the law. They knew that this was wrong. Yet they deliberately did it. So, Mr Speaker, we can see how they go about their work. They say we do not give them freedom of speech just because we do not give them this freedom. We have allowed them to hold rallies many times at several places in Singapore. Do they say that this is undemocratic on our part? We give this back to them. If they were to be in power, they would not have any sympathy for the people of Singapore. If we have Malaysia and are united, it would not be difficult for us to oppose Communism. As the Malay saying goes: the coconut fronds can either be used as a stick for making satay or we can tie them up into a bundle and make them into a broom. It is the same, if we stand alone, we are not strong. But if we unite together, we will be quite strong and we can oppose Communism. I say that I do not allow myself to be influenced. I am willing to die in order to follow the right path. I do not like my country - the place of my birth - to fall to the Communists. We must remember that this country is the possession of the people of this place. They should not bring any "ism" which is not agreeable to the people of this place. They should not be proud and should not condemn the Government. They do not know what they are talking about. They talk what they like. That is all, Mr Speaker. 3.25 p.m. Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown) rose -

I had better put the record straight. The hon. Member has spoken to the main motion. As I have indicated right at the beginning of this debate, if he wishes to speak, he can only speak on the amendment and nothing further.

I understand that, Sir. I just want to clarify the situation. I will not take very long. There has been a lot of misunderstanding and confusion regarding the amendment put in by the Member for Anson. There has been great play on the words "plan" and "motion". It is argued by the Member for Anson that so far as he knows there is no Malaysia Plan. Though he does not support the present Malaysia Plan sponsored by the British and the P.A.P., nevertheless, he would like to support the motion moved by the Tunku and debated in the Federal Parliament on the 18th October, 1961. His reason is that though he does not support the plan, he supports the concept of Malaysia. I do not think I have to go over the old grounds, Sir. All our speakers have repeatedly stressed that we support the concept of Malaysia. But we do not support the present Malaysia Plan of the British and the P.A.P.

Of the Tunku.

This has recently again been stressed by us at the Socialist Conference at Kuala Lumpur. I am sure the Member for Anson, if he were here, would understand and appreciate what he has done. But we feel that in moving the amendment, he has failed to take note of one thing. That is, what took place in the Federal Parliament when the motion was debated there on 18th October, 1961. The Member for Anson thought that the motion had nothing to do with what took place in the Federal Parliament in the debate that ensued. He thought that the motion had nothing to do with the Malaysia Plan. We feel that here is where the Member for Anson has made an error, because in moving the motion, the Tunku clearly indicated the line and the plan he was pursuing and -

With the support of the Socialist Front.

- hoping to adopt. He wanted a Malaysia with the Borneo territories - Sabah, Brunei, and Sarawak - coming in as States and Singapore coming in as a partner with no automatic Federal citizenship and no proportional representation. Sir, these Malaysia proposals or the Malaysia plan itself of the Tunku, as debated in the Federal Parliament on the date the motion was introduced, that is, on the 18th of October, 1961, cannot be divorced and separated from the motion itself. It is not realistic, Sir. The amendment of the Member for Anson amounts to changing the soup but not the medicine, as the Chinese saying goes. In other words, the Member for Anson is saying that he does not want to take the mutton, to use another analogy, but he is willing to take the mutton soup. So we see, Sir, that the plan cannot be dissociated from the motion itself. Similarly, the motion cannot be dissociated from the plan. They are one and the same thing in the context of what took place in he Federal Parliament on 18th October, 1961. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, the amendment to the original motion of the Prime Minister makes no difference to the original motion itself. It would be wrong indeed, Sir, to fall into the trap of supporting the plan when the intention, in fact, is not to support the Malaysia Plan. The Workers' Party has joined all the social Parties in the Federation, in Brunei, in Sarawak and in Singapore in condemning the present Malaysia Plan. But the Member for Anson, in moving the amendment, has given the impression that in supporting the Malaysia concept of the Tunku he is also supporting the Malaysia Plan. That is what, in fact, the amendment has done. Sir, as I have said a little while hack, the Member for Anson has joined with other socialist Parties in the Borneo territories, Federation and Singapore, in condemning the plan. There -

He feels less windy, is it?

- a lot of confusion has been created by this amendment of the Member for Anson. The people find it a little difficult to follow his logic and utterances on the subject.

He has scooted!

In short, Sir, he has unknowingly fallen into the P.A.P. trap and has thus become the unwitting supporter of the Malaysia Plan of which the P.A.P. and the British are co-sponsors. That is why the P.A.P. is secretly very happy at the amendment of the Member for Anson. 3.31 pm.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this getting together in the form of Malaysia has been debated in this House for several days. Originally, I did not wish to give my views because almost all the Members had expressed similar views. But in view of the fact that almost every Member of the Opposition has stood up to talk at length and if they are not replied to by the Government, then it will be discourteous on our part. On the question of the concept of Greater Malaysia, I will say that politically the five territories in this area should get together. It is an inevitable historical process. The reunification of the peoples in the five territories, as far as we are concerned, is something which we should celebrate and rejoice at. The question of whether this super merger will bring about prosperity to the people in the five territories has become the focal point, As to the form of merger and what it will bring to the people, we will say that as long as this plan will bring well-being and prosperity to the people, we will support it; and the broad masses of the people will also support it. So we say that the whole question of super merger lies in the hands of the poor people who were exploited for years. We hope that by realising the concept of Malaysia - and the sooner the better - it will bring prosperity and improve the livelihood of the people of Singapore. As a long-term objective of the P.A.P., we work for the interests of the people. A common social system exists among the peoples in the five territories. So this concept of a super merger is very important as it will bring prosperity and well-being to the peoples of these five territories. I would like to talk of the views of the people, especially the Chinese, outside the House in order that Members of this House can understand their views. During the last few months when the debate on merger and Malaysia took place, the people outside have been very enthusiastic about whether they should have a merger or not. Some of the Chinese are very frightened. They are afraid whether, after merger, the Malays would suppress the Chinese and that, as in the case of the Federation, priority would be given to the Malays whenever they apply for jobs in the Government service. Now, if that situation were to arise, then the Chinese in Singapore are afraid that they would suffer. But let me say that this fear is not illegitimate. We know for a fact that some Malays in the Federation of Malaya are privileged and have enjoyed certain priority over the Chinese. That is the cause for worry of the Chinese in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope this merget and super merger will bring equality to all races in Singapore and in all the other territories so that there will be no priority of one race over the other. If there is priority of the Chinese over the other races, then our Malay brothers will be discriminated against; I oppose such a plan. As far as I am concerned, I say common equality and prosperity should be shared by all the races. If there should be any difficulties and responsibilities, they should likewise be shared by all the races. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last few days of debate on this motion, we saw how the Barisan Sosialis Members attacked us in this respect. I would like to tell them that we must not look only at one side of the story. For example, the front part of the Chair in which you are sitting is red, but it does not mean that the rear of your seat is also red. So if you listen to a story, you must listen to the other part as well. We just cannot concentrate on one side. We must look at all its aspects in order to ascertain whether it is good or bad. We must realise that nothing in this world is perfect. It is all the better for us if we can achieve perfection. But it is impossible to achieve perfection, and so we must weigh the advantages and disadvantages, and take those with more advantages over the disadvantages. We must weigh the pros and cons. So on the question of Malaysia and merger, we think we should support the concept of Malaysia. For example, Mr Sun Yat-sen, a political leader in China, had the concept of having a common world, which means that all the peoples in the world would be under one roof. So the concept of Malaysia, as far as we can see, is similar to the concept of a common world, because it reunifies the peoples in the five territories. So I can say quite safely that there is no doubt whatsoever about the advantages of the Malaysia concept because this is only to the good of the people. If there is anything sinister about this concept, then we will oppose it as long as this comes from the British colonialists. So I hope that all the Members in this House should be careful if there is any sinister motive behind the concept. But we must not do something good just because we fear the colonialist motives. As long as the leaders who are pushing through this concept are vigilant and they know that they will not fall into the trap of the colonialists, then we should give them support. If the British colonialists should think that they can make use of our leaders to perpetuate their colonialist rule, then I will advise them that all the people in Singapore and all the people in the world will condemn them for such an act. Mr Speaker, Sir, as you have pointed out, you say that we should concentrate on the amendment, and so I would like to cut short my speech. But I would like, however, to clarify certain points that appeared in the newspapers -

Order. I trust the Lady has not misunderstood me. My remark about the amendment was directed to the Member for Queenstown. The hon. Member can speak on the motion as well as the amendment now.

(In Mandarin): Thank you for your guidance. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify certain points. First, there is one point raised by Mr Tan Lark Sye as reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh on the 27th of this month. In his speech, he touched upon the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation. He said if there is a merger, then half of the population in Singapore will lose their citizenship rights. Then what kind of a merger is it? We have many Chinese here, but there is no representation in the talks on merger. This has been said by Mr Tan Lark Sye. I would like to point out that I do not know what he means as to what kind of Chinese have no representation in the talks on merger. If, by Chinese, he refers to the absence of Chinese representation, then it is incorrect because the merger talks between Singapore and the Federation were carried Out between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Our Prime Minister here is a Chinese. As to Mr Tan Lark Sye's worry about half of the Chinese population or other races losing their citizenship rights, I will say that at a certain dinner we had occasion to meet Mr Tan Lark Sye. When he expressed his concern over the citizenship question, we told him that the peoples of Singapore will not lose their citizenship rights, except that they will elect among themselves representatives who will be sent from Singapore to the Federal Government. We also pointed out to him that the people in the Federation cannot come here to stand for election.

Order. The hon. Member is now going back on the merger proposals. We have finished with that. She might touch on that in passing. But if she goes into details, it is completely irrelevant to the motion, which is dealing with Malaysia. She must not debate on the merger proposals now between Singapore and the Federation.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, because merger is quite related to Malaysia I am mentioning this in order to clarify certain points. 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the last two weeks we have been debating two very important motions, namely, the motion pertaining to Irian Barat and the other on Malaysia. In the debate on Irian Barat, the Barisan Sosialis were vociferous in their anti-colonial stand. They even stated that Irian Barat should be freed from Dutch colonialism by, force. The Barisan Sosialis never at any time said that the Papuans should have self-determination first. But, Sir, the same anti-colonialists in the Barisan Sosialis, when it comes to taking a stand against British colonialism, are offering the same proposals for Malaysia as the Dutch are making for Irian Barat. Since the famous Eden Hall tea party, the Barisan Sosialis revolutionaries have become great advocates of internal self-government for Singapore and the Borneo territories but still retaining the British as their overlords. In order to understand the Barisan Sosialis political somersault, we must realise that the Communists and pro-Communists are dedicated primarily to the strategic and political needs of international Communism. It is significant that the opposition to Malaysia has been voiced most violently by the P.K.I., or the Partai Kommunis Indonesia. The Indonesian Communists have condemned the Malaysia concept because they see in Malaysia a counter to their long-term plans to make Malaysia a part of the Communist Indonesian empire. They, the Communists, see Malaysia as something which stands as a barrier to the expansion of Communist influence in South-East Asia. The P.K.I., whose sphere of influence includes South-East Asia, condemns Malaysia, and the local underlings like the Barisan Sosialis have started implementing the P.K.I.'s policy. Sir, it is our feeling that the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis towards Malaysia merely reflects the strategic needs and interests of Indonesian Communists and not those of the people of this region. It is ironical that just as in its heyday, Western imperialism deliberately fostered a policy of divide and rule in South-East Asia so that small and feeble States could be manipulated by colonial powers; so today we see Communists following the same policy of preventing the establishment of a strong united States of Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis have now become servile stooges of the P.K.I. in its plans to keep Malaysia weak, divided and impoverised. The P.A.P.'s approach to the problem of Malaysia is based on the fact that the over-riding and primary objective should be the completion of the national struggle of the people of Malaysia. This approach implies not only the elimination of colonialism, which is after all a negative approach to the problem of anti-colonialism, but in the context of Malaysian community, it also implies the consolidation of a Malaysian community whose loyalties transcend racial, religious, communal and other parochial considerations and affiliations. In other words, in the context of the Malaysian situation, socialists must lay the foundation of national consciousness before they can utilise and mobilise class solidarity which is so essential for the ultimate establishment of socialism in Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Toa Payoh read out extracts from the resolutions passed at the Malaysian Socialist Conference held in Kuala Lumpur. One resolution as reported in the Straits Times of 29th January, 1962, page 18, column 2, reads as follows: `CONDEMNED the three previous Consultative Solidarity Committee Meetings on the Malaysian proposals on the ground that the delegates to these meetings in Sabah, Sarawak and Kuala Lumpur represented their own selves and the British interests.'. Sir, if this resolution, supported by the Barisan Sosialis at the Kuala Lumpur Malaysian Socialist Conference, is correct, then the Member for Thomson, according to his own colleagues, represented himself as well as British interests. Since the expenses of the Singapore delegates were met by the Singapore Government, it appears that the Member for Thomson has travelled under false pretences in order to represent British interests. What is the reason for this? Has the Member for Thomson stepped out of the party line? Is this a public rebuke of the Member for Thomson at the behest of the P.K.I. that he had said and done the wrong things? Would he, like Molotov, be sent to Outer Mongolia? The other person who attended the Consultative Solidarity Committee was the Chairman of the Sarawak United People's Party. The Secretary of that Party, supporting the resolution passed at the Malaysian Socialist Conference, has condemned his own Chairman as having represented British interests. To the average person, all these political somersaults will be confusing and difficult to follow. The truth of the matter is that the Socialist Front of the Federation of Malaya supported Malaysia before the P.K.I. resolution. The Socialist Front leaders voted for the Malaysia Plan in the Federal Parliament. Once the orders came from the Indonesian Communists to oppose Malaysia, all the so-called Socialist Parties were forced to eat their own words. Now that the Communist masters of the Barisan Sosialis in Jakarta have given the new line, the Barisan Sosialis do not hesitate to make a scapegoat of the Member for Thomson by implying that he was at Kuching to promote British interests. What is so amazing about all this is that the Member for Thomson and his Barisan colleagues, though proclaiming themselves Malayan nationalists and socialists, are knowingly allowing themselves to become traitorous dupes of the Indonesian Communist Party. They know full well that they have been instructed by the P.K.I. to go back on their original stand on Malaysia. They know that they are now engaged on a deliberate sabotage of merger and Malaysia to further not the ends of Singapore and Malaysia but to help the Indonesian Communists to one day subvert and conquer the 10 million people of Malaysia. Step by step, the Barisan Sosialis Members are being forced by their Communist overlords to engage in political duplicity and in the sell-out of Malaysia to foreign Communists. Of course, the Barisan Sosialis deny that they are a branch of the P.K.I., but they respond like trained poodles to the orders of their P.K.I. masters. But we in this Assembly know that the denials of the Barisan Sosialis mean nothing, because political duplicity is an essential part of their political strategy. You will remember, Sir, that once they dismissed as a fairy tale our allegation that they had paid secret visits to Eden Hall in order to sell out the independence of Singapore to the British, in return for the abolition of the Internal Security Council. But once the evidence was produced, they had to admit that they had been engaged in such a disgraceful and humiliating plot. They are now denying that their opposition to Malaysia is a conscious effort to promote the cause of Indonesian Communism. They say, "The P.A.P. is branding all who oppose Malaysia as Communists." They know that this is not true. The P.A.P. has never said that all who oppose Malaysia are Communists. We recognise the fact that there are non-Communists who oppose Malaysia for non-Communist reasons. We do not brand them as Communists, though we think they are wrong in fearing Malaysia. What we are saying is that there are proved Communists who are opposing Malaysia for the sake of ensuring that Malaysia comes under Communist control. The Barisan Sosialis in opposing Malaysia are working to promote the cause of Communism. They are exploiting non-Communist anti-Malaysia elements to further the ends of the P.K.I. You will notice, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis Members react to our allegation of Communist control by saying that the whole thing is a smear, but they never deny our specific charges. Mr Lim Ching Siong his not denied the authenticity of the documents published in the book "The Battle for Merger". Yet these documents clearly prove that Mr Lim Ching Siong is a fervent disciple of Communism. They denied too the report about Mr Lim Ching Siong wanting Singapore to merge with Indonesia was true. Yet the recent somersault of the Barisan Sosialis on the question of Malaysia makes clear that that is what they really want. The Member for Thomson made this cleat when he talked of Indonesia being the heartland of Malaysia. The so-called Malaysian Socialist Conference is further proof that the local Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and front organisations in the Federation are now the messenger boys of the P.K.I. The Malaysian Socialist Conference was originally intended to be a conference of socialists to discuss, among other things, the concept of Malaysia, which the Barisan Sosialis and the socialists in the Federation said was a good thing. Then the conference was postponed. No reason was given for this postponement. Yet it was common knowledge that the success of the merger negotiations and the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee meetings were worrying the Communists. Not long after the Kuching meeting of the Committee, a number of so-called socialist leaders from Singapore, the Federation and the Borneo territories went to Indonesia. Towards the end of last month, the P.K.I. came out with its blast against Malaysia. After that, the so-called socialists changed their line on Malaysia. The conference of socialists at Kuala Lumpur was not to be one to discuss the socialist way of realising Malaysia but a conference to break up Malaysia. Since the P.A.P. was one of the Parties which did not take orders from the Indonesian Communists, efforts were made at the conference to see that the P.A.P. was gagged. Its working paper was rejected. Its delegates were booed when they revealed that some of the delegates were Communists and P.K.I. stooges. It was clear that the conference had been so rigged that the P.A.P. would not be given a chance to state its case for Malaysia. The Communists had their "boo boys" ready to shout down any unpleasant truths which would have exposed Communist machinations. May I state here, Sir, that after all the efforts, the so-called socialists could not summon much of a crowd at the Chin Woo Stadium. There were no more than 200 people present, and of that a few were curious observers; many were schoolboys and schoolgirls. The Malaysia Socialist Conference was a flop, and the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis knows this. This, in spite of the deception played on the people of Kuala Lumpur. Posters were pasted in the Chinatown in Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Street, and other areas, which indicated that Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Devan Nair, Mr Woodhull, would be addressing the rally. The organisers of the Conference knew that Mr Lim Ching Siong would not be addressing the rally. Indeed the Member for Queenstown, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, who was present at the Conference, knew that Mr Lim Ching Siong would not be addressing the rally. Yet in order to dupe the people of Kuala Lumpur, in their posters they mentioned that Mr Lim Ching Siong would be addressing them. And in order to bring others who might be opposed to Mr Lim Ching Siong but wanted to know what it was all about, they mentioned Mr Devan Nair, Mr Marshall and others. This is their practice to attract a crowd. But after all their machinations and all their dupes, all they could get were about 2,000 people. The Barisan Sosialis know that in fighting Malaysia, they are fighting a losing battle. The fact that they have now to become openly stooges of the P.K.I. shows clearly that the Barisan Sosialis is neither a socialist Party nor a nationalist Party. It is a Party dedicated now to the most shameful of all political acts - the betrayal of the country and the people of Singapore and Malaysia to their Indonesian Communist masters. Betrayals are not a new thing to the Barisan Sosialis. They have betrayed their Party and their colleagues at the Anson by-election. Now they embark on the betrayal of 10 million people of Malaysia. 4.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should all be grateful that this time we have been spared the ordeal of further 7½ hour-speeches on this motion seeking the support of the House for Malaysia in principle. Obviously the Barisan Sosialis have learnt that their tiresome performance in the two weeks of repetitious speeches during the debate on merger had not won for them either praise or support of the people. From all their arguments in this debate, one thing is clear, viz., they have learnt that to say that they support merger in principle and then quarrel with merger in practice has put them in an embarrassing position and has confused their own supporters. So this time, on Malaysia, this debate has been cut short because they are going back to the more simple and straightforward propaganda line - of being against the proposal, oppose in principle and in practice. What, is curious is that this switch of line coincides with the policy statement of the Indonesian Communist Party attacking Malaysia as being anti-Indonesia. From June to December last year, the time of the Kuching Conference, the line of the Barisan Sosialis as the open front Communist political organisation was that n principle, they supported Malaysia. Indeed the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong, said in writing to the newspapers in June last year that he would support a confederation of all the five territories provided internal security was left outside the hands of the Central Government. In Kuching, as recently as the 17th and 18th December the Member for Thomson, as the representative of the Barisan Sosialis from this Assembly to the Malaysia Consultative Solidarity Committee Conference, said categorically in the Conference that he supported Malaysia in principle. However, on the 30th and 31st December, the P.K.I. held a conference and denounced Malaysia as anti-Indonesia. And on 7th January in Kuala Lumpur, at the resumption of the adjourned meeting of the Solidarity Committee, after this policy statement of the Indonesian Communists, the Member for Thomson was the only delegate to the Solidarity Committee meeting who refused to stand up and raise his hand to say, "Hidup Malaysia", when everybody else did so at the call of Dato Mustapha, the North Borneo delegate. And so at the so-called Socialist Front Conference in Kuala Lumpur, which even the blind now know to be nothing more than a Communist front conference, the line was anti-Malaysia and, instead, self-determination for Singapore and Sarawak by1963. Sir, the Member for Havelock has alleged that I have disclosed at a Party meeting in June 1960 that Malaysia was a British plot. The Barisan Sosialis and Mr Lim Ching Siong must have been in full knowledge of all the information in the possession of the Member for Havelock. When one year later, Mr Lim Ching Siong in June/July 1961 in a written policy statement disclosed that he supported a confederation of the five territories provided security was left outside the Central Government, he must have known this-that Malaysia was a `British plot! Because by then the Member for Havelock had already turned turtle on us and gone back to his former supporters and friends and superiors of the A.B.L. Sir, how is it that in June last year, knowing full well that it was a British plot, Mr Lim Ching Siong still advocated a confederation - of course, always provided that internal security was left outside the hands of the Central Government? For the purposes of the record, may I put the Member for Havelock's recollection right on what was said? I never said that Lord Selkirk showed me a telegram which he sent to the Colonial Office. No U.K. Commissioner does that and certainly not Lord Selkirk. `I recall referring to the Russian loan of over a thousand million rubles for the purchase of arms by Indonesia and saying that the British understand that general tension in the whole area must mount as a consequence; that one day in the near future West Irian will be settled either by force or by the imminent use of force. They must therefore be conscious of the fact that once West Irian has been removed as a colonial irritant on the Indonesian Republic, the Borneo territories of Kalimantan are bound to loom large [I think it is more correct to say the British Borneo territories than Kalimantan] in the forefront of the South-East Asian horizon, and being practical people the British know it is to their advantage to move one step ahead of history.' It is not as the Member for Thomson and the Member for Havelock have suggested - fear of the rising tide of anti-colonialism in the Borneo territories - that bothers the British. These are fanciful thoughts in the context of the realities of the Borneo situation. Sir, the Member for Havelock has never been to Borneo. The Member for Thomson was there for the first time last December, for three days in Kuching, and two or three days in Brunei town. And he has not the slightest idea of the real position. Sir, let me table a few salient facts. Sarawak has three-quarters of a million people, of whom about half are Dyaks, one-quarter Malays, one-quarter Chinese. The Dyaks were once part of the kingdom of the Sultan of Brunei. Later they were ruled by the white Rajahs who gave special privileges to the Malays over the Dyaks. With the advent of direct British rule in 1946, the special position of the Malays under the Rajahs was wiped out and there was complete equality between the Malays and the Dyaks. And the Dyaks, far from being anti-British because the British Colonial Government improved their position after the Second World War, are extremely happy with the present position of equality as against the previous position of inequality. Sir, the only so-called anti-colonial elements in Sarawak are found in the towns of Kuching and Sibu. Pro-Communist elements, who have in the last few years undergone training from elements in Singapore, are operating amongst a section of the Chinese in the towns of Sibu and Kuching - the size of Muar and Kluang respectively of some 10 or 15 years ago. Sir, it would be 15 to 20 years before the nationalist movement of the Dyaks, the Dusuns, the Muruts, the Malays and the Chinese can reach the point where the British position would be at all threatened. And it is not internal pressure which is making the British withdraw gracefully before the time is up. I suggest it is the relentless logic of external pressures. Sir, when the Barisan Sosialis talk of the S.U.P.P. and the Party Rakyat of Brunei, I do hope they would put things in perspective. The influence of the S.U.P.P. is only in one section of the total Chinese population in Kuching and Sibu, the two main towns of Sarawak, and not by all means the only towns of Sarawak. And not the whole Chinese population live in Kuching and Sibu. Sir, in North Borneo there is no Socialist Party but there are about 12 nationalist Parties now, and more are being registered. Of a population of 430,000, three-quarters are Dusuns, Muruts, and other indigenous people, and one-quarter Chinese. In Brunei the population is 20,000. Of these, 20,000 are Chinese, and of the 20,000 only 3,000 have any citizenship rights as subjects of the Sultan. 60,000 are Malays and the indigenous people; 25,000 are adults. Even assuming that every adult supports the Party Rakyat of Brunei, all it means is that a constituency, the size or about Geylang Serai, supports Party Rakyat. When the Barisan in Singapore and the Socialist Front in the Federation, which unfortunately today is openly and heavily Communist penetrated and dominated, though not to the same extent as the Barisan in Singapore, talk about the anti-colonial freedom movements of Borneo, the British officials there must be laughing their sides out. If it were internal pressure of the Borneo territories that British colonialism has to contend with, then I say they can safely remain there for another 15 to 20 years. Sir, as a nationalist and a socialist Party, our decisions are based not on what the colonial power does or does riot do, but on what is or is not in the interest of our people. The argument has been advanced by the Barisan Sosialis, in particular by the Member for Thomson, that if any proposal is supported by the British colonialists, then it must be pro-colonial and must be opposed because obviously the proposal is in the interest of the colonialists; otherwise they would not have supported it. Therefore, since the British colonialists have welcomed Malaysia, it must be opposed by anti-colonialists. Sir, this may be anti-colonialist, Communist tactics and policy. But any nationalist Party that works on such a fallacious principle and commits fatal blunders in the process will wind up in the gutter. The British obviously know that they must withdraw from the position of sovereignty in Singapore and the Borneo territories. I am not quite sure they are very happy about withdrawing from the position of sovereignty in the Borneo territories too quickly. That was the reason why I asked the Member for Thomson whether, in fact, should be found the British were recalcitrant to leave, would he then support the liberation movement analogous to West Irian? But, of course, he said he was going to give me an answer on this Malaysia debate. But he has not done so. Sir, does it mean that it is against the interest of the people of Singapore, Malaya and the Borneo territories if the British say it is in their interest to leave? According to the Member for Thomson then, it is a colonial plot, and therefore, we must oppose it. What is this? Is their leaving and giving us sovereignty against our interest? Must we, to satisfy and make the Communists happy, insist upon the British remaining and prevent their withdrawal, all in order that the anti-colonial struggle can go on and on to its protracted and final conclusion which they hope will be to the benefit of the Communists? Sir, since the objectives of nationalism are different from the objectives of Communism, so the yardstick of what is good and what is bad is also different. The fact that the Malaysia Plan is considered by the Indonesian Communist Party to be anti-Indonesia does not mean, first, that it is in fact anti-Indonesia. It probably means that it is against the interest of the Indonesian Communist Party, and, to that extent, as was stated by Mr Lim Ching Siong, on behalf of the Communists, it is part of the cold war strategy to prevent the Communists from expanding their `influence'. That is what the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis said - involving Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo territories in the cold war. How? By preventing the Communists in Indonesia from expanding. Secondly, Sir, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Malaysia is anti-Indonesia - in other words, it is anti a Communist Indonesia, not favourable to a Communist Indonesia, because the non-Communist Indonesians are quite happy with Malaysia - why should the plan be bad for the people of Malaysia? The fact that it is bad for a Communist Indonesia because it prevents easier expansion of its influence over, first, the Borneo territories and later Singapore and the Federation of Malaya may very well be a very good thing for the people of Malaysia. The trouble with the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist open front back-seat drivers is that they have not sat down to calculate the consequences of their own policy statements. In June/July last year, Mr Lim Ching Siong said that he was in favour of Malaysia provided internal security was outside the Central Government. But on the 18th and 19th December, with the assistance of the Member for Thomson, all the Sarawak, Borneo and Brunei delegates were convinced that the best thing was to have external affairs, defence and internal security in the hands of the Central Government, and an announcement was made to that effect at the end of our deliberations. After that Mr Lim Ching Siong lost interest in the confederation because the three Borneo territories have agreed, their leaders have expressed the view that they should go into the Central Government. Now first, because any such scheme to keep internal security outside the hands of the Central Government will obviously fail, and, secondly, because the P.K.I. has come out against Malaysia as anti-Indonesia, the Barisan Sosialis openly oppose Malaysia both in principle and in practice. Sir, meanwhile Inche Syed Zahari, a former editor of Utusan Melayu, who was barred in the Federation of Malaya for a diversity of reasons - which at one time I had hoped to be of some assistance in resolving - and who is now the prospective editor behind the scenes of the Malay edition of the Barisan Sosialis, stated that the Tunku's Malaysia Plan is a fraud because Melayu Raya, the original term for Malaysia, meant the incorporation of the Borneo territories. Singapore, and the Federation of Malaya into the heartland of Indonesia Sir, the pro-Communist faction of the Socialist Club in the University of Malaya published with approval Inche Syed Zahari's article taking this line in the Fajar of December 1950. And then we all heard, to our consternation last week on the motion for West Irian, the Member for Thomson repeating the same line that a real Malaysia means Indonesia as the heartland and that Malaysia without Indonesia is anti-Indonesia. Sir, obviously the Barisan fully supports the proposal that real Malaysia must be Malaya, Singapore, the Borneo territories coming into the heartland of Indonesia, and because our Malaysia does not mean that our five territories are put into the heartland of Indonesia, it is anti-Indonesia, because, and I suggest the P.K.I. knows that, it will make it more difficult for the P.K.I., if it were to gain control of Indonesia one of these days, to absorb the Borneo territories, Singapore and later even the Federation of Malaya. So the Barisan Sosialis have turned and twisted their line until even their own followers are confused. Originally they wanted to oppose merger, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the simple reasons that internal security would be in the hands of the Central Government and Communist activities would be conscribed. Instead of sincerely admitting this and fighting it on this ground, which they fear nobody will support, they have looked for all kinds of other reasons. First, they want to stop merger, with a lot of malicious nonsense about citizenship and second-class citizen; the worthlessness of labour and education being left in the State of Singapore. Then they want the reverse of that, saying, "Anyway, look at that. Although it is valuable, it will be revoked by the Federation Government." As each one of those lies is debunked, they are then pushed into more and more extreme positions. Now since the Tunku says if there is no Malaysia then there shall be no merger, they say. "Well, then that is the best thing. Let us have no Malaysia." But they were quite happy to have a Malaysia with security outside the Central Government. But now that the P.K.I. has declared Malaysia to be anti-Indonesia, then all they have to do is to echo it and follow that line. That settles it. They alleged, first, that Malaysia is anti-Indonesia: secondly, it is part of a British plot and conspiracy: third, there is no self-determination in the Borneo territories. Sir, may I ask them what are their long-term objectives and where does this policy of just blocking the other guy going to lead them? What are they in favour of? They do not want merger unless it is on terms which will allow the Communists in Singapore to capture the Federation. They do not want Malaysia since they have reserved that for the Indonesian Communist Party. What they want, so they have said, is an internally self-governing Singapore with defence, foreign affairs and sovereignty left in British hands, but with the Internal Security Council abolished in order that the Communists can run amok and expand their influence. But what are their long-term aims and where do those lead them to? What are their long-term objectives? Surely it cannot be to create an independent Communist State of Singapore, for that would be both economically and militarily impossible. The declared aim of the Malayan Communist Party is to set up a Communist Soviet Republic of Malaya and Singapore. Yet they do not want merger, although for all these years since 1945, they have condemned the separation of these two territories as being the responsibility of the wickedness of the British colonialists and later of the Federation reactionary feudalists. Sir, Wartawan, a little journal of some non-Communist and Communist journalists in Singapore, ran a series called "Quo Vadis". For those who have not seen the film, all it means is, "Where are you going?" An hon. Member: Brother.

"Brother". "Where are you going, Barisan brother?" That is the question which every Communist and fellow-traveller should ask himself. As far as we are concerned - the socialists and the nationalists - it is quite simple: independence, stability, peace and prosperity in a democratic non-Communist socialist Malaysia. We tabled this as a resolution in the so-called socialist conference in Kuala Lumpur, and this Communist front conference using the banner of socialism, was afraid even to discuss this resolution. An hon. Member: Plagiarising!

Yes, the Barisan Sosialis plagiarising from the P.A.P. saying that they want an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. They wrote it down solemnly hoping thereby everybody will forget that they are Communists. When we tabled that and said, "Let us discuss this non-Communist socialist Malaysia," our paper was rejected and our resolution was scrubbed. No discussion was allowed from men who day by day abused the liberties of the democratic system for tirades and untruths in the name of human rights, of liberty of speech, liberty of association. Sir, the tragedy of the M.C.P. is that, contrary to the Marxist/Leninist doctrine, it is trying to bring about a Communist revolution working through not the indigenous races - the Malays, Dyaks, Dusuns and the Muruts - but through the active immigrant section, the Chinese. I am not here pronouncing judgement on the M.C.P. because I was never a member. I just watched at close quarters. I am quoting now Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Sandra Woodhull, Vice-Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr James Puthucheary, adviser of the Barisan Sosialis - I do not want to quote ad nauseam. I know it is always unpleasant to have irrefutable proof of evidence of their own handwriting, their own statement, solemnly made on the day of their release from prison, of their own volition after they were released. They said the Communist movement in Malaya had failed because it has not been able to get Malay support. I am quoting them when I say this. `The inspiration, the impetus and the organisational technicalities are those of the Chinese Communist revolution. That is what Mr James Puthucheary told me; that is what Mr Woodhull told me; and that is what Mr Fong Swee Suan told me. I spent hours analysing and reanalysing the follies and the blunders of the M.C.P. and I profited from these very objective and agonizing reappraisals. Sir, the Communist revolution in China is one of the greatest revolutions that had ever taken place in the history of China. It has given coherence, a disciplined sense of purpose to replace the warlordship and the corruption that reduced China to anarchy for so long. But even according to the Marxist/Leninist doctrine, for a revolution to succeed it must be locally based and the M.C.P. will not be locally based for as long as those inspirations cannot pull at the heartstrings of the indigenous people of Malaya and Malaysia. If one day Communism were ever to hope to make a really massive appeal, then it must be home-based and it must be able to draw the Malays, the Dyaks, the Dusuns and the Muruts together with the Chinese and the Indians into its whirlpool. That day can only come if the leadership of the Communist Party passes into the hands of local Malays, Dyaks, Dusuns and Muruts, and the inspiration of revolution comes from a close neighbour like Indonesia with a people and a country more like Malaysia. Hence I say the significance of the P.K.I. statement that Malaysia without Indonesia is anti-Indonesia. It is easier to make Malaysia accept Communism from Indonesia through the Dyaks, Dusuns and Muruts on the Indonesian side of Borneo, appealing to kinsfolk on the Malaysian side through Malays from Minangkabau and Sumatra, appealing to their kinsmen in Malaya, than to get Malaysia go Communist from appeals of' thousands of miles away from China. Sir, the Member for Queenstown said that the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee in Cairo has condemned Malaysia as a British plot in the cold war. Sir, I do not know how many Communists there are in that Solidarity Committee, but I know that India is one of the strong supporters and a great leader of the Afro-Asian neutralist bloc. On the 9th December, when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong arrived in New Delhi, the Vice-President of India, Dr Radha Krishnan, at a State banquet on behalf of the President of India, who was then indisposed, stated that India hailed and welcome the plan to include Singapore, Borneo, Sarawak, Brunei and the Federation in Malaysia. He expressed the hope that such a State would contribute to the peace and prosperity of Malaysia and wished Malaya success in the execution of its plan. Sir, this comes from the head of the largest non-Communist neutral nation. What I want to ask the Member for Queenstown is: is he suggesting that he and his fellow travellers in the Barisan Sosialis are more anti-colonial than Mr Nehru, Dr Radha Krishnan, or President Prasad? Or is he suggesting that the Indian Government is less well informed than the Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee in Cairo? Sir, we have been accused in the course of the debate on the merger proposals of having sold out Singapore. Therefore, it was my great pleasure to watch the Member for Thomson - who obviously gets no pleasure in hearing things like this recounted to him - both at Kuching and at Kuala Lumpur recently, for there he found the North Borneo and Sarawak delegates pressing for the same kind of concessions and safeguards that the Singapore Government has obtained from the Federation of Malaya. They wanted autonomy in a number of spheres also. They did not want to go in as a complete State like one of the eleven States in the present Federation because they had certain local interests to protect. They wanted to prevent free migration into their territories. They pressed for Borneonisation, not Malayanisation, of their civil service. They made mention of a separate citizenship in order that people from the Federation of Malaya and Singapore cannot go to North Borneo and Sarawak freely and outvote the people there. And yet we were here falsely and maliciously accused of having sold out Singapore - we who have obtained special nationality rights, automatic conversion for all Singapore citizens into Federation nationals with equal rights as Federation citizens even though they could not qualify under the present Federation citizenship laws. In passing, may I just say that a Press report referred to by the Member for Bras Basah about a member of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Tan Lark Sye, saying half of the people would be disfranchised after merger, must be false and untrue, because Mr Tan Lark Sye on the 27th of November last year, had dinner with us and expressed great satisfaction at the arrangements whereby nobody in Singapore lost citizenship and at the fact that it is absolutely fair that if Singapore citizens cannot vote in the Federation, neither can Federation citizens vote in Singapore. But from time to time we get these deliberate, malicious either misunderstanding or misreporting. So the battle will go on until the last of every malicious lie has been nailed down to the ground. Sir, the Member for Thomson was present in Kuala Lumpur when the citizenship rules for the Borneo territories were discussed; citizenship rules to decide who will be the citizens of Malaysia. Only British subjects in Sarawak and North Borneo and subjects of the Sultan of Brunei will become Federation citizens. Those not permanently resident there must have both - they themselves and their parents, their fathers, must be born in the territories before they can qualify for citizenship of the Federation. Sir, under these conditions, 90 per cent of Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore will be disqualified. In other words, 90 per cent of 340,000 citizens by registration, because they were not born here, will be disqualified. So we have reached special agreement with the Federation to allow all Singapore citizens to keep their Singapore citizenship and automatically have equal rights by becoming Federation nationals. Sir, the Borneo territories could agree to these conditions because 95 per cent of their population were born and bred there, including the Chinese in Borneo. The immigration laws of Borneo have been so strict since the war that only 5 per cent are new immigrants who have just come from outside, namely, Indonesia and China; from China via Hongkong. Sir, the curious thing the Member for Thomson had to explain away was - and I asked him this at the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee meeting - if the agreement between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya was a sell-out, why did the Borneo territories want the same concessions and safeguards which the Singapore Government had obtained? I asked the Member for Thomson in open session whether, by virtue of the remakes he was making about the people of Borneo the necessity to protect them and so on, he doubted the competence or the standing of the delegates from Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei. He stood up - and it is on the record of the Kuching conference - and admitted that they were fully competent and fully qualified to represent the people of Sarawak and North Borneo. He knows that the representatives of the people of Sarawak are men who have been elected in local government elections. Mind you, I do not know if the Member for Thomson understood the importance of when in Rome, as the saying goes, not acting contrary to what the Roman's do. He turned up at Kuching with great revolutionary force, verve and fervour to unfurl the banner of revolution, took off his tie and his coat. I understand some very elderly gentlemen there, who represent thousands of people up the Baran River and the Rejang River, turned up to do honour to the occasion. They brought out family heirlooms and beads and necklaces round their necks and all the other tokens of respect for the occasion. I am sorry to say that the Member for Thomson, much to his disappointment, discovered that he was cutting no ice with men who talked politely but whose word carried the authority of the whole of the inhabitants up the various rivers and the tributaries of those rivers. One chief turned up with bear's teeth attached to his ears to do honour to the occasion. This great revolutionary from the Barisan will be able to confirm this. I am told that these bear's teeth signify courage, tenacity and decisiveness, because once the teeth sink in, it is the end. And amongst the other happy events in the Solidarity Consultative Committee meeting were the tremendous cheers from all sectors of the crowd present. One of the Dyak chieftains said that in the neighbourhood where he came from, if the Communist gave trouble - I did not understand him altogether, Sir, because I am not well versed in the Dyak language hut I understood a few words here and there by his gesticulations - he left me in no doubt whatever of the traditional method of the Dyaks dealing with troublesome people. And tumultous applause from the Chairman of the S.U.P.P. As I turned round to my colleague, Inche Ahmad, lo and behold, to his right, there was the Member for Thomson sitting rather morose and forlorn. An hon. Member: I thought he clapped his hands.

He did not. He was the one gentleman - just like the one gentleman in Kuala Lumpur - who was reluctant to stand up, raise his right hand, and say, "Hidup Malaysia!" He was the one gentleman who came with revolutionary fervour without a tie when other people brought out all the family heirlooms. He found more and more that he was very far from unfurling the flag of revolution. In fact, it was the great catalystic effect of his timely interruptions, always dissociating himself on behalf of his people from everything that was said by any other member of the delegation, which I am sure convinced everybody else of the first cold draught of the things to come. They decided without further ado that external affairs, defence and security go to the Central Government - thanks to the Member for Thomson. And so through all the twists and turns the Communist open front Barisan Sosialis have now at last successfully isolated themselves as the only Party now here which is anti-Malaysia both in principle and in practice. Sir, I would like their Vice-Chairman, Mr Sandra Woodhull, and their adviser, Mr J. J. Puthucheary, to ask themselves, how is it that they could have approved in writing - one of the useful habits one acquires as a lawyer is always to have a document in writing; it helps to establish what was intended to be said accurately and I have their agreement in writing - the policy statement of the Central Executive Committee even before it was published in the 6th Anniversary Souvenir number on 1st January, 1961 - just a year ago - defining the P.A.P. stand on merger and supporting the first proposals Oil Malaysia. And, of course, they have gone back and melted away under Communist pressure. But fortunately letters and documents do not melt away under any form of pressure. Sir, unlike the Communists, our decisions are based on our own appraisal, and our policies are designed to achieve our own political objectives. We cannot and do not switch lines in midstream at the behest of an outside authority. Sir, my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has explained how the Indian Communists first opposed the last war as an imperialist war and joined the Congress Party leaders in going to prison for nonco-operation with the British. But when Russia entered the war, then it became an anti-Fascist people's war. People's war - they always talk about the people. Unfortunately, it was contrary to the sentiments and the national feelings of the whole Indian people, and the Indian Communists organised strike-breaking to help the British war effort. As a result of such anti-national policies, the Indian Communist Party today continues to be isolated from the broad mass of the Indians. Sir, whatever the High Priest in Moscow says or probably the local Cardinal in Indonesia says, so the person in the Barisan Sosialis repeats and parrots the sermon. One day, Stalin was a great creative Marxist-Leninist. And even Mr Lim Ching Siong - the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis - held a meeting in memoriam to grieve over their departed leader. The next day he was condemned as a murderer with a personality cult. Cities, roads, squares, factories and villages named after him have been given new names so that his memory can he erased from the mind of Russia. And even his body lying in in state in the mausoleum was pulled out and reburied to be properly forgotten. This is the way you switch lines. "I am in favour of Malaysia," the Member for Thomson said so in Kuching. I asked him pointblank. He stood up and in clear and categorical terms asserted his support and the support of the Barisan Sosialis -

The concept of Malaysia.

- for Malaysia in principle. Now principle or no principle, they are against it. The P.K.I. says, "Anti-Indonesia", and the Member for Thomson says, "Yes, anti-Indonesia." Let us assume that it is anti-Indonesia. So what? Is it pro the people of Malaysia? That is the yardstick.

Anti the people of Malaysia.

You never said that. That is the tragedy of the Member for Thomson and his ilk. They never say the right things because they do not think these things. It is not whether it is good or bad for the people that they are supposed to represent, or their interest and welfare that they are supposed to advance. They just parrot whatever is pumped in. An hon. Member: He will be demoted.

Well, as I have said, when the history of this epoch comes to be rewritten in 20 or 30 years' time by a Communist government in exile somewhere, several chaps will be pulled out of their graves, put up against the wall, shot again metaphorically and reburied. [Laughter]. It is not a laughing matter. If they are unfortunate enough to be alive, then it will be worse for them. Once upon a time Molotov, Kaganovitch, Malenkov, Voroshilov were all great men - Marxist-Leninists. The day before yesterday I read that a special law was passed to scrub out the names of these men from towns, villages, factories, schools, universities, army units and other items. Sir, 84 decrees were introduced - 84 special honourable mentions, New Year's Honours, Stalin's Birthday Honours, Lenin's Heroes' Day and Red Square Day over 30 years giving recognition to these men for their work on behalf of Joe Stalin and the Russian Communist Party. Marshal Voroshilov, President of the Soviet Union, referred to 20 times in several army units and military academies named after him. Kaganovitch, 27 times; his name given to several stretches of railway lines and underground stations. Now they are going to be wiped out for a ghastly mistake. So I say history will record that this folly of fighting merger and Malaysia is one ghastly mistake in which all those who participated in either making the decision or executing the orders of those who erroneously and criminally made this decision -

You were left alone to yourself.

- I say to them that when history comes to be rewritten, I hope there is an honest non-Communist socialist Professor of History in the University of Singapore who will ensure at least that we are given a decent footnote. These were misguided but fortunately ineffective men so that their crime is mitigated by the ineffectiveness of the evil intentions they were unable to execute. From being pro-Malaysia in principle provided internal security - always provided - is not in the hands of the Central Government or provided they capture the Central Government, they have done one complete right about turn and their new line is, "Malaysia is anti-Indonesia and is to be opposed in principle." The Member for Thomson was the man entrusted with the most important policy statement. He was the man sent, since only one man could be sent to Kuching.

Failure of a mission!

Failure of a mission. Well, bad luck. And it was an impossible task. Even if they had sent a Kaganovitch or a Khrushchev, they would still have failed. These were men with stout hearts. I was told that people who wear bear's teeth in their ears and have beads round their necks, descended from hundreds of years of family tradition and history, are not rattled by fierce words from Singapore. And they demonstrated in a very effective way and left us all in no doubt as to exactly what was intended. What could the Member for Thomson do? But he nevertheless - I give him credit - was chosen as the only man who could go to Kuching. If you will remember, they wanted to send two - perhaps you do not remember. But I was told that they made enquiries from the Minister for Culture whether he could have a travelling companion because he gets lonely travelling to faraway places. Since only one man was allowed, the Chairman of the Barisan. obviously thought it rather risky sending a new recruit like that all by himself and a second-class scout was sent - not the tenderfoot - in search of his first-class badge provided he made good there. I am sorry to say the Barisan Sosialis Plan - defence and external affairs go to the centre and internal security remains outside; two days of dissenting with everybody and keeping on. Here he was. I had literally to apologise on behalf of my colleagues - I think the Member for Geylang Serai apologised on his own behalf - as we had by our democratic manners and democratic habits allowed the impression to go abroad that we were all a lot of uncouth and unmannerly people who went to foreign places and kept on talking in a way which left nobody in any doubt that the local people are not fit to look after themselves: that the Barisan Sosialis have come to look after their interests. An hon. Member: To be liberated by the Barisan Sosialis.

To be liberated by the Barisan Sosialis. And then I stood up publicly to apologise. I am glad to say that at least the Member for Thomson had the decency to stand up and affirm that he had not the slightest doubt that the delegates from Sarawak and North Borneo were fit and competent to look after the interests of their own people. It is all recorded in Radio Sarawak. There is no document in writing, but I am told that this is almost as good. You can hear the voice. I am glad that the Member for Thomson said that, because he was a better judge than the gentlemen in Kuala Lumpur who never went there. They never saw the chaps who turned up there with beads. [Interruption] They said that this represented British interest.

Order. I think the Prime Minister will realise that he is going back on his speech. I understand why he is doing it because the Member for Thomson is here. He is hoping to have an interjection. Let us get on with the speech.

As you know, it is all right being fair and democratic. I would not like it ever to be said by the Member for Thomson outside this Chamber, "If I were there I would have denounced the Prime Minister as a so-and-so." Well, he is here, Sir,It is all recorded on tape by Radio Sarawak. He was there. There were three witnesses - the Member for Geylang Serai, who was no accomplice of mine, the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Labour. Sir, I am quite sure Radio Sarawak will oblige, if Members of the House feel interested, and arrange for the tape to be heard in the Library during the next Session of the Solidarity Consultative Committee. He admitted that he represented them. And a bunch of people who knew nothing about it - I do not want to be discourteous to people who - I think they really are more to be pitied than hated - had the temerity to say that this Conference represented British interests and the people themselves. What is the Member for Thomson doing there? Let me remind him: at least in our Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee there is freedom of speech. The Member for Thomson stood up when he was not expected to stand up at the opening ceremonial session. He stood up, dissociated himself from everybody else. He was allowed to speak. The Chairman did not stop him. I was told by my colleague, the Minister for Culture, that the Chairman at the Kuala Lumpur Conference - men who are always shouting in defence of human rights - took a big ruler and was getting more and more agitated, banging the table and threatening the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. Here we were in Kuching, civilized gentlemen. No, Sir, I will not be very long. I think I might as well complete this. I want this on the record, Sir; so many other things and they are very useful. He clearly knew that good manners pay, because the next day when he turned up for the party, he turned up properly dressed.

With a tie.

With a tie, Sir. An hon. Member: And a coat.

And a coat. A well-mannered gentleman. But I am sorry to say it was not such an important formal occasion and so I think all the family heirlooms were not on display. What has happened between July last year and now to have made the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis take a right-about turn? That is the question we must ask ourselves. What new in-formation, what startling fresh analysis, has been discovered which they could not have discovered six months ago? Or they could not have discovered one month ago in Kuching, when the Member for Thomson went there and supported Malaysia in principle?

Concept of Malaysia.

Concept of Malaysia. Now they do not even support the concept of Malaysia. They say the concept of Malaysia is anti-Indonesia.

No, we said we support the concept.

Now they support the concept of Malaysia. They say it is anti-Indonesia.

The trouble is that you do not want to listen to our speeches.

That is the tragedy, Sir. We listen so attentively that we are bewildered and confused. In dealing with such gentlemen, it is always safer to have things down in writing. All I can say is that that is their tragedy. The line has been set for them by the P.K.I. from Jakarta. Mind you, Sir, the Secretary-General of the Ban-san Sosialis is a more important open front Communist leader. And he is not a man reputed for understatements. He has categorically asserted that it is the P.K.I. that is following his line; the P.K.I. taking the line from the Barisan.

Following from your line.

That is what he said. In other words, the most important Communist Party in South-East Asia and the third most important Communist Party in the world outside the Communist countries takes its line from the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis. And the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis says, "No. I am not a Communist." Are we seriously asked to believe, Sir, that the third most important Communist Party in the world in a non-Communist country would take a line from a man who is not a Communist? That the Cardinal, instead of listening to the Pope, listens to the local parson from Singapore, and takes the sermon -the Sermon on the Mount is preached by the local parson in Singapore. And the parson says, "But, no, I am not a member of the whole organisation. I am just an outsider. A good, non-Communist Socialist." Sir, by keeping in line with the decisions of communist Parties outside Malaysia, they are slowly becoming isolated in Malaysia. Just as the Indian Communist Party, by toeing the Moscow line, became anti-nationalist; so they, by toeing the P.K.I. line, will become anti-nationalist in Malaysia. Sir, this amendment moved by the Member for Anson and supported by the Member for Hong Lim is an amendment in form. The substance remains that they support the principle of Malaysia. And we agree to the amendment. It also quite clearly isolates the Barisan Sosialis as the only Party in this Chamber that is against Malaysian solidarity and against the Malaysian nation. Sir, it is a bad start for them to be against a nation even before it is founded. After its inauguration, I think those who were against the nation even before it was founded have only themselves to blame if they find that the nation is not particularly well disposed towards them after it has been inaugurated. We are here as a Government prepared to do all that is necessary in the interests of the people, regardless of the personal abuse and smears that have been showered on my colleagues, on myself, the P.A.P. and the Government. We are what we are, and always have been. Fortunately my colleagues and I, Sir, are not desperate men because we have no reason to be desperate. I would like to assure my enemies that desperation is an ailment that will fix only those who are on the verge of dire disaster. And we have no dire disaster gaping in front of us, Sir. We are going through with merger and Malaysia. It is our responsibility and duty to the people to see that their security and their prosperity are ensured. Nothing will deter us from this task. If it was power we wanted, we would not have contemplated resigning after Hong Lim; nor would we have chosen the more difficult way of taking a nationalist stand and defending it from attack by the Communists and their supporters. Why should we have taken a more difficult road if it was personal interests that moulded us? And we did take the more difficult road by setting out to explain to the people of Singapore why they must be part of a larger entity for their own survival, instead of taking the easy and cheaper slogan of "anti-colonialism", "full internal self-Government without the Internal Security Council". In a write-up in May in Hong Lim, and in June before Anson, the Communist front organisations in the unions and the most important Communist front leader, Mr Lim Ching Siong, were inviting us, the P.A.P., to take the lead in the anti-colonial struggle. This is all in writing, Sir; statements issued to the Press, documents in writing. We were asked to lead the anti-colonial struggle but in their direction - to press for the abolition of the Internal Security Council at the next constitutional talks. All we need have done in Anson, if it was power that we were interested in for our ownselves, was to pay lip service to anti-colonialism as defined by the Communists and promise to ask for the abolition of the I.S.C. in 1963. And when 1963 comes and there is no abolition of the I.S.C., then lead a massive agitation for its abolition, to greater heights of mass popularity, all in the Communist anti-colonial movement. That was the easy way and would have kept us our safe majority this time; and perhaps with a bit of skilful trimming and cutting, bring us in again the next time. But it would have brought ruin and perdition to the people of Singapore, the people of Malaya and the people of Malaysia; for if Singapore goes, so will Malaya and the whole of the Borneo territories. Sir, the Communists have made grave miscalculations as to our firmness of intention and tenacity of purpose. They may do well before they go on with their anti-merger and anti-Malaysia campaign to ask, where will all this lead them to? On issues of life and death, such as merger and Malaysia, considerations of personal fate and fortunes of Assemblymen and Ministers are utterly and completely irrelevant. Let the Barisan Sosialis remember this. Let the Communist front leaders take this into their calculations before they mount their final assault.

Question, "That the word `plan' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the word `motion' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Amendment accordingly agreed to. Question, "That the words `in principle' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Amendment accordingly agreed to. 5.15 p.m.

The question now is the Original Question as further amended: "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 motion proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, and agreed to in the Federation Parliament on 18th October, 1961, for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising the eleven States of the present Federation, the States of Singapore and Brunei, and the territories of Sarawak and North Borneo." Question put.

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 13; Absent, 3; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani S. T. Haji Jumat. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad bin Fung Yin Ching, Ibrahim. Miss. Ahmad Jabri bin Lee Siew Choh. Mohammed Akib. Leong Keng Seng. Buang bin Lin You Eng. Omar Junid. Low Por Tuck. Byrne, K. M. Ong Chang Sam. Chan Chee Seng. Sheng Nam Chin. Chan Choy Siong, Tan Cheng Tong. Madam. Tee Kim Leng. Chor Yeok Eng. Teo Hock Guan. Goh Chew Chua. Wong Soon Fong. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Absentions. Madam. NIL. Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy. Absent. Lee Kuan Yew. Koh, C. H. Lee Teck Him. Marshall, David. Lim Cheng Lock. Ramaswamy, S. Lim Yew Hock. Lingam, S. V. Mammen, John. Mohamed Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Original Question, as further amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved, 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 motion proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, and agreed to in the Federation Parliament on 18th October, 1961, for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising the eleven States of the present Federation, the States of Singapore and Brunei, and the territories of Sarawak and North Borneo.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to 14th March, 1962."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 14th March, 1962.