Hansard, 1962-04-18

The following Question stood in the name of Mr David Marshall:- 1. To ask the Prime Minister what is the area occupied by the Royal Singapore Golf Club and the terms on which such lands are held.

Mr David Marshall.

Question No. 1, Sir.

The Prime Minister does not appear to be here. No doubt he has a written answer for the Member for Anson.

2.32 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [17th April, 1962] to Question [17th April, 1962], "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made b the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.".-(Mr David Marshall). Which Amendment was, `To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and insert - "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia".'- (The Deputy Prime Minister-Dr Toh Chin Chye). Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 2.34 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir I mentioned yesterday that the P.A.P. was just like Hitler a few years ago. The S.P.A. is no different from Eichmann. The P.A.P. wants to write oft with one stroke of the pen the will and views of the people of Singapore on tile question of a national referendum. The S.P.A. is abetting in this intrique. It is now singing the same tune and trying to seek concord out of differences. The Minister for Culture yesterday said that many people believed in merger, but what should be the form of merger? That is the question to be decided upon. The Member for Farrer Park also said that, in principle, everybody supported merger. The question is, how is tile merger to be carried out and what type of merger will it be? The Government should consult the people on the question of merger. Sir, the speeches of these two fellow travellers are very attractive and may appeal to some people. They may appear to be very democratic. But if we go more carefully and deeply into this, we will have no difficulty in seeing through their tactic, which is to confuse white with black, or, pointing at a stag, say that it is a horse. If the Government is sincere in its wish to consult the people and let them decide on the form of merger, then, first of all, it must collect all the views and concepts of the various political Parties on this question of merger. The Government should then ask the people which type of merger they want, i.e., the type that is formulated by which political Party. The Government must abide by the decision of the people and proceed to negotiate with the Federation Government on that basis. That is the only way for the Government to consult the will and the opinions of the people. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. secretly proceeded with its talks with the Federation Government on the question of merger before consulting the people, and now they have presented this so-called White Paper on merger. Now what the Government should seek is whether the people agree to or oppose their White Paper on merger, i.e., the form of merger the people are faced with, for their decision today. Mr Speaker, Sir, this question is just like a barrel of rice before it is cooked, that is, the opinions and the views of all should be consulted. What kind of rice are we going to cook, Teochew porridge or Kongfu porridge? But now the P.A.P. is presenting the rice already cooked and burnt to the people and is asking their views on it. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people are now asked to decide whether or not they accept the burnt rice that is cooked by the P.A.P. (that is something already done) and not on what kind of rice they are going to eat. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, there should only be one question at the national referendum - whether the people want this White Paper on merger.

Order. The hon. Member is perhaps in order if, in his speech, he makes passing reference to the White Paper and urges that it should be put to the referendum. But I might remind him that there was an amendment by the Member for Queenstown which specifically asked that the question be put to the referendum, and that amendment has been lost. Therefore, there cannot be a debate now on whether or not that question should be put. As I say, a passing reference to allow for Continuity Of a Member's speech is permitted. But not a debate now on whether or not that question should be put.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had just concluded what I wanted to say on that point. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park also said yesterday that a national referendum is meant for the Government to seek the views of the people on a certain question, so as to enable the Government and the legislature to know what kind of merger is to be adopted and what they should do on a certain issue. If there is only one question on the ballot paper put before the people, it is not enough because, if that is so, then it is not possible to get the views of the people on a certain issue. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is what the Member for Fairer Park said. The Front benches of the Government on many occasions have also made the same arguments as those advanced by the Member for Farrer Park. All these arguments are not worth rebutting. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister on 16th of March, during the course of the debate on the National Referendum Bill, pointed to the national referendum held in New Zealand as an example. That referendum concerned the question whether bars and restaurants should carry on their business after 6 p.m. The question before the electorate in New Zealand was whether after 6 p.m, bars and restaurants should close their doors, and not whether they should close at a certain hour or whether after 6 p.m., what kind of liquors should be sold. Mr Speaker, on the 1st of October last year, the New Zealand Government put a question to the people to decide whether they wanted to ban nuclear weapons. The question was not how to ban them or to limit their number. Mr Speaker, Sir, the independence of Algeria is inevitable. According to the Associated Press news from Paris, on 8th April, the question put by the French Government in a referendum was whether they would agree to the Algerian peace proposals put forward by the President of France, General de Gaulle. In other words, the French people were asked to decide whether they agreed to the French/Algerian cease-fire proposals as proposed by General de Gaulle. The people were not asked to decide on how the cease-fire was to be achieved. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question to be put by the Government of Singapore to the people should also be just one question. The purpose of the Deputy Prime Minister's amendment is to ignore positively and openly the wishes of the people of Singapore at a future national referendum. I would ask the P.A.P. and the Alliance to name the countries in which more than one question was advanced for the people to decide, That is why I say that the P.A.P. is more dictatorial than Hitler was and this is no exaggeration. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Minister for Culture criticised the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown to delete the word "reunification". Perhaps he has learnt his logic from Alex Josey for having arrived at the conclusion that the Barisan Sosialis do not want to have reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. He advanced puerile arguments in the same way when he likened the Barisan Sosialis to the Dutch. This is only worth a smile. We are of the opinion that any constitutional proposals on a basis of inequality will not be conducive to the true spirit of reunification, especially when the White Paper has clearly shown that the merger proposals are not for what you can call reunification. The Minister for Culture has once again disclosed the P.A.P.'s trickery of deceiving the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister, when he moved his amendment, said that the Barisan Sosialis in their desperation were trying to create suspicion, distrust and confusion among the people of Singapore in order to block the realisation of merger. He went on to say that this action of the Barisan Sosialis was not only childish and puerile but also dangerous and that it would lead to very regrettable consequences, such as the outbreak of racial conflict for which the Barisan Sosialis would be held fully responsible. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister, it would appear that the P.A.P. are bankrupt in their political theories. The poverty of the various races in Singapore can only be improved on the basis of a non-communal arrangement. In other words, it is only in a society where there is no exploitation of man by man that poverty can be abolished and there is prosperity. If any constitutional arrangement is based on equality of citizenship rights for all races, then there will be no racial conflict or racial inequality. The Barisan Sosialis have never done anything or said anything to create racial conflict or suspicion among the people. Sir, it is necessary to unite the workers of all races and the intellectuals of all classes in Malaya in order to thwart any attempt to disrupt the unity of our people. This has been clearly stated in our manifesto when our Party was founded. Today, the people are mostly concerned with the question of whether they will be deprived of their citizenship rights and whether there will be any safeguards for their future generations. This fear of the people should not be overlooked by the Government.

Order. I trust the hon. Member is not now embarking on a debate on citizenship. As I say, all these points can be mentioned in passing, but he must not enter into a debate or say anything which might open up a debate in regard to matters on which this Assembly has already come to a conclusion.

(In Mandarin): I accept your ruling, Sir. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the P.A.P. will recklessly force the people of Singapore to swallow the poison given by them at all costs. I would like to remind the P.A.P. Government that they should shoulder the responsibility for all consequences. Sir, we firmly oppose the amendment of the Deputy Prime Minister. We cannot issue a blank cheque to be used by the P.A.P. especially in connection with the future national referendum. If the Government is sincere in wanting the people to decide on the future constitutional arrangements, then it should withdraw its amendment to the motion. 3.00 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in debating the motion before the House only those people whose blood is dirty will have skin disease, and only those whose souls are filthy will make nonsensical speeches.

Order. I have heard unparlimentary expressions in this Chamber but I think the expressions which have just been used take the first prize! I would suggest that these expressions are completely unparliamentary and they ought to be withdrawn.

(In Malay): If you consider such expressions to be unparliamentary, I withdraw them. If we study the aim of the motion of the Member for Anson to which an amendment has been moved by the Government, it is an attempt to obtain cheap publicity in order to get the support of the masses and to create uncertainty in their minds so that they will hate the Government. When he moved his motion, I observed that he was pretending to be a genuine democratic fighter by alleging that parliamentary democracy would not be destroyed by the Communists but by the P.A.P. He also said that the present practices of the P.A.P. Government are of a dictatorial nature. I wish to emphasise that if the P.A.P. runs a dictatorial administration, the Member for Anson will not now be in this Chamber. History has shown us that in dictatorship countries-for example, in Germany - many people suffered to such an extent that even the skin of human beings was used to make shoes. But we can see in this Chamber the Member for Anson crowing as loud as he wishes, airing his views and throwing criticisms as much as he likes. The Member for Anson intimated that he sympathised with the Back benches of the Government by saying that they had been influenced by the Front benches of the Government. We would like to state once and for all that the stand of the Back benches of the Government is firm, unlike the wavering stand of the Member for Anson who at one time challenged our Prime Minister to go to the people but who subsequently did not carry out the challenge. We do not whisper among ourselves, unlike the Member for Anson who conversed in a whisper with the Member for Nee Soon when we were debating a certain issue once. That clearly shows that he has no firm stand of his own. Mr Speaker, Sir, some Members of the Opposition have said that the stand of the Government can be likened to the dictatorship of Japan. If the attitude of the Government could be so likened, we would then see heads of people exhibited at street corners. But today the people are free to express their views in the true tradition of parliamentary democracy. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should not say what we like as regards the referendum on merger with the Federation of Malaya. When we talk about reunification or merger, it means there are two things which should be agreed upon by two sides. If one side insists on its view only, then it means that it is forcing the other side to accept its view. On the issue of merger, we must try to understand the views of the other side in order to reach a mutual agreement. Then only can we come to a certain understanding. For instance, if the Barisan Sosialis really believed in complete merger, they should have the courage to move a positive amendment using the phrase "complete merger". But instead they have kept on harping on the White Paper on merger which has been accepted by the Assembly, and they are wavering in their stand. The Member for Queenstown said that he shared the sentiments expressed in the motion moved by the Member for Anson. This means that he agreed with the views expressed by the Member for Anson. They have said that they want complete merger outside this Assembly, but not in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I heard the Member for Upper Serangoon saying that the P.A.P. have twisted and turned the merger issue into a reunification problem. I think there is no difference between merger and reunification, because Singapore originally was part of Malaya. Reunification means a return to the fold - except, of course, if the intention is to reunite Singapore with Taiwan or with some other country! Singapore and Malaya are one. If we talk about reunification, it, is not incorrect in the true sense of, the word, unless it is the intention of some people to mislead the masses. If they cannot accept the word "reunification", then it is hard to understand why they support the motion moved by the Member for Anson in which the word "reunification" is used. They are speaking with their tongue in their cheek in order to confuse the people. It should be the responsibility of every Member of this Assembly to give a true picture of the situation to the people and not to twist the facts.

Order. Did I hear the Member right when he said that the term "reunification" appeared in the motion standing in the name of the Member for Anson, because I cannot find the word "reunification" in that motion?

On a point of order, Sir. Perhaps I can be of assistance, Sir. You will find that the amendment as moved by me was, 'That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people ...'-

Order. I am talking about the motion. We have disposed of the Member for Anson's amendment. My question was whether the Parliamentary Secretary, by indicating that the term "reunification" was in the motion of the Member for Anson, meant it was in the motion standing in the name of the Member for Anson, or in some other motion, or possibly the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson which did not leave out the word. "reunification".

(In Malay): Sir, the word "reunification" was used in the amendment. I am only touching on it in passing. .1 was saying that some support the use of the term "reunification" while others object to its use. Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion moved by the Member for Anson, to which an amendment has been moved by the Government, clearly shows that the mover is attempting to obtain cheap publicity in order to get the support of the people and at the same time to confuse their thinking.

On a point of order, Sir. I seem to -

Order. The Member for Anson should just rise and say, "On a point of order," because of the lapse of time in interpretation. So I have not really heard what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was going to say. The point of order being?

The point of order being that the Standing Order says that one should not question the motives of a Member of the Assembly in bringing matters before the Assembly. Am I not right, Sir?

Possibly the Standing Order referred to is Standing Order 46 (6) which says: `No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member.' I do not know whether the Member for Anson is alleging that the Parliamentary Secretary has imputed an improper motive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I suppose that is without question an allegation of improper motive.

And the words used being?

The words being that I am seeking cheap publicity, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Well, I must confess that the Speaker has never been a politician, but I am sure politicians would like publicity, whether it is cheap or expensive!

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore National Referendum Bill was tabled in the Assembly and it is now to go to Select Committee. This clearly shows that it is the Government's intention to hold a referendum, otherwise there would be no purpose in tabling the Bill. If it is against the Standing Order, I do not wish to comment further, but everybody knows this. If the sex of a fish can be identified in water, what more we who are politicians? We should not confuse the minds of the people, if we are true representatives of the people; and we should not fail to voice their views. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite sure that many people are perturbed over this talk of democracy which amounts to a big farce as propagated by the P.A.P. The issue is quite simple: whether the Government wants to seek the approval of the people on their White Paper proposals. And whether the Government is prepared to accept the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum. Sir, the very fact that the Deputy Prime Minister, in moving his amendment, has conveniently left out the very last part of the motion moved by the Member for Anson, viz., "will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed", is a clear indication that the Government has no intention whatsoever of accepting the views of the people if those views are going to be contrary to the Government's proposals for merger as contained in the White Paper. Sir, we have been accused of being people who want to wreck the parliamentary system. I am quite certain that anybody with an average intelligence will realise that the way the P.A.P. proposes to go about holding this referendum will, in fact, wreck the parliamentary system. It will make the word "democracy" a mockery. All that we have been saying is: here you have your proposals contained in the White Paper as adopted by this Assembly, with the support of the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. And we feel that the people must be asked whether they support these proposals or they do not. The question to be posed to the people should be one that is simple and that does not seek to confuse the people. I am sure we can all remember the confidence with which Government Members spoke during the debate on the White Paper. If they are that confident, if they are quite sure that the only people who oppose the White Paper are the so-called Communists, and that everybody else wants merger on the terms proposed by the Government, then why are they afraid to pose a very simple question to the people?

Order. The Member for Thomson is doing exactly what I said to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that he should not do, and that is to debate on why the White Paper should or should not be put to the people. The reason is that that question has already been debated and has been rejected by this Assembly. I have indicated that, for continuity of speech, the Member for Thomson can just mention the matter in passing, but not urge once again that the only question for the referendum should be the White Paper.

I was just going to mention that in passing, Sir. The point I want to stress is that if a referendum is held, it should not be merely for the sake of form. It should not be just to show that the Government wants to consult the people. But, in actual fact, it will merely be a form used to get the support of the people. Sir, it has already been pointed out that what the Government is thinking of is along the lines of posing two alternative questions. And in all likelihood, the two alternatives will be unacceptable alternatives. If the people are going to be asked to choose between two evils, then quite certainly there will be some people who will be uncertain. They may send in blank votes. And the Government has thought fit to have a proviso in the Referendum Bill couched -

Order. The Member for Thomson is completely out of order. That particular clause in the Bill is now under consideration by the. Select Committee and he cannot refer to it.

What I do want to point out, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the motive of the Government in wanting to hold this referendum. It is not its genuine desire to consult the views of the people, because they are committed to consult the people. They want to work out a form which is going to be used to bulldoze their White Paper proposals through. Sir, if the intention of the Government is not to accept the decision of the referendum, then the consequences are going to be very serious.

So that you can start trouble!

Let me make it quite clear. It is not trouble created by individuals that I am talking about. There have been accusations that the Barisan Sosialis has been responsible for creating communal tension. The movers of the merger proposals have right from the very beginning approached the problem purely from a communal point of view. We all know that if today Singapore is not going to be accepted as a constituent unit like any other State in the Federation of Malaya, if the people of Singapore are not going to be accepted automatically as Federal citizens, it is because the majority of the people in Singapore are Chinese. This is a blatantly communal approach. And having made the approach right from the very beginning on a communal basis, and now giving the people the choice to reject categorically the proposals as contained in the White Paper which are based on inequity, it is inevitably going to create trouble. Whether this is said or not said is not very important. I refuse to believe that the people can be forced into accepting a constitutional arrangement, whereby they are going to be treated as second-class citizens. I wish to assure you again: I do not want to start and I am not going to start a debate on the merger issue. But it is pertinent, Sir, to mention this: in examining the motion before the House, the purpose in wanting to hold a referendum should be to determine whether the people support the P.A.P. proposals or not. And if the people do not support them, then they should not be proceeded with. As I have said, if, firstly, the machinery provided for consulting the views of the people is going to be inadequate; secondly, the form in which the people are going to be asked to approve or disapprove the P.A.P. proposals is going to be inadequate; thirdly, if the Government is determined to push through this White Paper arrangement, irrespective of the desire of the people; then it does not take a superman to forecast that the repercussions are going to be serious. As I have said, the Government Members have always said that they are confident the people will support the White Paper. According to them, it is only the so-called Communists who oppose merger. In the words of some of the Government Ministers, there are only 300 Communists in Singapore.

You are a big boy now!

Surely, Sir, the Government is not suggesting now that it has lost the confidence of the voters they had in the past. I tell this to the Government benches, Sir - better not commit atrocities in the name of democracy. Sir, some of the worst atrocities in the world have been committed in the name of democracy. I am sure Members on the Government benches do not want to be democrats like Chiang Kai-shek, Syngman Rhee and so on and so forth. We do not want to say that we are genuine democrats and that we are defenders of the towers of parliamentary democracy, etc. It does not matter what we are called. But it is those honourable Members sitting on the opposite benches who have been saying that they are champions of democracy. Let us work out a simple, straight-forward arrangement so that you get the views of the people quite categorically. Do not tell them to choose between two evils and give them not even the alternative of putting a blank vote. Referenda held elsewhere in the world have always been, to the best of my knowledge, in the form of one simple question: "Do you support the Government's decision on this, or do you not?" Yes or no. If the purpose is not genuinely to seek the views of the people but to force them to give support to the Government, then I say, Sir, this is not democracy. This is hypocrisy. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that we have all heard of the term "guided democracy" in this part of the world. What the P.A.P. Government is trying to practise is not even guided democracy. It is "guarded democracy". Sir, if ambitious men in an attempt to save their own political career want to try to bulldoze their constitutional arrangements through, the consequences are going to be serious. And let this be a warning. I say that whatever the consequences as a result of the acts of the Government, the responsibility should lie squarely on the shoulders of the men who hold the reins of government. 3.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to oppose the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. The original motion of the Member for Anson was to seek an assurance from the Assembly that there will be a referendum on merger. Sir, since my Party, the United People's Party, first called on the Government on 18th September, 1961, to refer their proposals to the people for decision in a referendum, the Government have made many pronouncements agreeing that there will be a referendum. But the Deputy Prime Minister's amendment goes one step further than the assurance on the referendum which the Member for Anson seeks. It is going to ask the Legislative Assembly to provide a cloak for the questions which the Government are going to frame in the referendum ballot paper. If the questions framed are unfair and undemocratic, the Government will try to seek cover by saying that the Legislative Assembly has approved them, which is far from the truth. What is meant by "the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya"? The Deputy Prime Minister has not explained its meaning to us. However, from the speech of the Minister for Culture, it seems to us that the voters will be asked to choose whether they want the P.A.P. merger proposals or the so-called Penang or Malacca type of merger. Is that what is meant by "the mode and manner of merger"? Does it mean that the people will have to choose between two types of merger, both of which they do not want? Mr Speaker. Sir, what the people want is a complete merger where all Singapore citizens, wherever they are born, automatically become Federal citizens. The net result of the amendment of the Deputy Prime Minister is to shift the emphasis on whether there is going to be a referendum on to a different issue. The Legislative Assembly is to be asked to give its sanction to the questions which are to be framed by the Government in the coming referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, the U.P.P. therefore oppose the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister.

The original Question was, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.". Since which an amendment has been moved, to leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 18; Abstentions, 6; Absent, 3. Ayes. Noes Buang bin Bani, S. T. Omar Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Chan Chee Seng. Koh, C. H. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Lee Siew Choh. Chor Yeok Eng. Leong Keng Seng. Goh Chew Chua. Lin You Eng. Goh Keng Swee. Lingam, S. V. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Low Por Tuck. Kandasamy, G. Marshall, David. Lee Khoon Choy. Ng Teng Kian. Lee Kuan Yew. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Teck Him. Ong Eng Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Sheng Nam Chin. Mammen, John. Tan Cheng Tong. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Tee Kim Leng. M.Ismail Rahim. Teo Hock Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Absent. Sahorah binte Abdul Hamid bin Ahmat,Madam. Haji Jumat. Tan Kia Gan. Ahmad Bin Toh Chin Chye. Ibrahim. Wee Toon Boon. Yong Nyuk Lin. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Abstentions. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Lim Yew Hock. Mohamed Ali bin Alwi. Rajah, A. P. Seow Peck Leng, Thio Chan Bee. Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Amendment accordingly agreed to.

The Question now is the motion as amended. Question proposed, "That in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia."

No Member wishes to speak? The Member for Anson has the right of reply. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first thing that needs to be asked is why the Member for Anson brought up this motion. It could not be -

Order. I think the Minister has lost his opportunity if he wants to speak in that strain. We are now on the motion as amended. In other words, the original motion proposed by the Member for Anson has been rejected by this Assembly. Therefore, the motive as to why he brought that motion to the Assembly is out of place. We are discussing the motion as amended.

With due respect, Sir, I wanted to explain why we brought our amendment. The terms and wording of our amendment act as a counter to the motive which inspired the Member for Anson to move his motion. I am not going to discuss the merits or otherwise.

I think that speech should have been made immediately after the Deputy Prime Minister moved his amendment. That was the time to say why the Government chose to move its amendment and why the Government thought the Member for Anson moved his motion. We are now on the motion as amended, and the debate must be on the content of that amended motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amended motion is in view of the Government's clearly stated stand. I want to show that this Government has clearly stated its stand, whereas the debate has been on the lines that the Government has not indicated its stand and therefore it is necessary to pressurise the Government into accepting and giving an assurance that a referendum will be held. I submit, Sir, that nobody - neither the Member for Anson nor the Barisan Sosialis - really believes that a referendum will not be held. Therefore, in trying to defeat the Government's amendment and in trying to call into question the Government's amendment, they had a specific purpose in doing so and it is necessary for us to understand what these motives are.

Order. I am afraid the Minister is too late. That speech should have been made when we were debating the amendment proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. That was the time when that type of speech could have been made. Now we are debating the amended motion and, therefore, the speeches should be confined to the content of that amended motion. The Minister is quite right if he says he wishes to indicate that, in fact, the Government has clearly stated its stand on the question of merger. As far as that is concerned, that is in order.

Well, Sir, the Government indicated its determination to hold a referendum firstly on its own initiative long before the idea of holding a referendum was even a twinkle in the eye of' the Member for Anson. The Government has clearly indicated that it will consult the people on the terms and conditions of merger.

But it is now backing out.

The Member for Anson has just said that the Government is backing out. In this connection, Sir, I have made it a point that any time the Barisan Sosialis or the Member for Anson says, "It is raining outside," I suggest humbly, Sir, that before we believe this, we should go outside and first find out whether it is raining or not, because they have got into the habit - and the Member for Anson is obviously learning from the sergeant-majors in the Barisan Sosialis - of distorting facts. In fact, the strongest expression that I can use is to say that they are indulging in falsehoods. They query whether the Government is serious about holding a referendum or whether it is going to back out. The Member for Anson has quoted the Prime Minister as having said in this Chamber on 16th March - and this is reported in the Straits Times of 17th March: `If there was the slightest risk of merger being frustrated and the country plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists, let me say that it will be criminal folly on the part of the Government to hold the referendum and to allow the future of Malaya and Malaysia to be imperilled.' Therefore, Sir, the Member for Anson maintains that this is an indication that the Government is going to wriggle out of its promise to hold a referendum to consult the people on the conditions and terms of merger. As I have said. Sir, I have come to the conclusion that when a Member from the Barisan Sosialis or the Member for Anson says that it is raining outside, we must go outside and check first. I went out and checked the quotation concerned. This quotation from the Prime Minister's speech was only a part of an argument leading to a conclusion. The conclusion following immediately after the sentence is in black type, and unless the Member for Anson was as blind as a bat, he could not have overlooked the following sentence in the Straits Times of 17th March appearing in black type: `If that were the position, if the risk existed then, it is the duty of the Government to go through with it [referendum] to ensure that the peace, security and happiness of the people, not just of Singapore but of Malaya and Malaysia, are not jeopardised.' Therefore. Sir, I submit to you -

On a point of order. I have been misrepresented to the knowledge of the Chair - I suggest it is a point of order - that part of the speech which I am alleged to have been so blind as not to have noticed was read out by me in this Chamber in my speech on the motion.

It is not a point of order. But there is an opportunity which the Member will have - unless, of course, the Minister gives way at this moment - an opportunity of correcting a misrepresentation under the provisions of Standing Order 43 (4) which reads: 'A Member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer an explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood;'. If the hon. Member wishes to correct what he alleges to be a misrepresentation, he will have an opportunity to do so unless, as I say, the Minister gives way now and the Member for Anson can explain it.

Sir, in that case, may I rise on a point of elucidation?

I am always willing to give way to a misguided -

The Minister just gives way. That is all. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

They are incapable of courtesy, Sir.

Order.

I now repeat what I have said, that that is a falsehood - the allegation that that statement was not made in this House, as the records of this House can prove, and I ask the Minister to withdraw that allegation.

Can I understand what is the allegation complained of?

I am sorry, Sir, I made a certain speech yesterday. It is alleged by the Minister for Culture that I was so blind that I did not see the paragraph immediately following the first paragraph quoted which was in black type in the Straits Times, and that I had thereby misrepresented the Prime Minister by not reading it. I am informing you, Sir - and I know I cannot expect your memory to recollect it, but it is on the records - that in truth and in fact the Minister for Culture is perpetrating a falsehood in saying that I had not read out in full that second paragraph in my motion when I addressed the Chair yesterday afternoon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is always difficult to follow the logic of the Member for Anson, because I recollect, Sir, that he spent the best part of about 20 minutes going through a series of verbal explosions to say that this quotation showed conclusively that the Prime Minister had indicated that a referendum may not be held: Whereas my contention, Sir, is that it is quite clear from the quotation -

He had a mental blackout!

- that the Prime Minister had indicated that there are people who think this way but that it is the duty of the Government to go through with the referendum.

To go through with Malaysia.

It does not say Malaysia. It says here to go through with it, that is, with the referendum. If there is the slightest risk of the country being plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists, it is the duty of the Government nevertheless to go through with the referendum. The reason why the Government is holding the referendum is also the reason which worries the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists who guide them and the Member for Anson. They are not afraid that we are not going to hold the referendum. They are afraid that we are going to hold the referendum. But what they really want to know is what happens after that. That is what worries them, not the fact that we are not going to hold the referendum but what happens to those who have embarked on a dangerous enterprise. This enterprise started off as a short-cut for some of them to become the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and so on. But now it has become a hazardous journey where the Communists follow the usual strategy of committing people first on little things to a course of action from which there is no retreat; and today, nine months after, they have come to a position where the battle is not to make individuals Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and so on. Here is an issue where the Communists, having committed them, are driving them to go further and further into a morass. It has now reached a stage where the referendum battle decides bigger issues - not the issue of merger as such, because everybody accepts merger in principle. The Barisan Sosialis accept merger in principle. The Member for Anson accepts merger as a concept. Even the Member for Hong Lim accepts merger as a concept. So the reason why they are worried and will be worried by the amendment of the Government is, first, it disposes of any propaganda attempt by the Barisan Sosialis that a referendum will not be held. In fact, I submit that they know a referendum is going to be held, because during the last three weeks, the Barisan Sosialis have been on Sunday hikes organising their followers to go canvassing. If they believe that there is not going to be a referendum, they will not be wasting their time going from house to house to canvass. Most of these canvassers included young children with dried milk on their lips, and they went from house to house bleating about phoney merger about which they knew nothing. All these are indications that the Barisan Sosialis know that the referendum is going to be held, and so they have started campaigning. Therefore, what then is the real issue? As I have said, Sir, the first is they are worried that the referendum might be held after all and of what will follow as a result of it being held. Therefore, their real objective is to ensure that the questions to be put to the people are couched in a language which will help to confuse the people about the terms and conditions of the referendum or, as we have said, the mode and manner of the merger. Sir, all their speeches amount to. "Please tell us how you are going to conduct the referendum? What are the questions that will be asked? Will you please put them in such a way that it will help the Barisan Sosialis to accomplish their one purpose - to defeat merger?" Whereas we have said that the question of merger does not arise but only the terms and conditions of merger. We anticipate that if the terms and conditions of merger are put to the people in a clear and straightforward manner, the chances are that the vast majority of the people will vote for conditions which will safeguard their interest. What have the Barisan Sosialis been saying in their propaganda? "Do not have merger because Malay shopkeepers will take over Chinese shops." That is one of their lines. "The Malays will rule the Chinese." So what they really want is the question, "Do you want the Malays to rule the Chinese?" - or something like that. So it is our duty, when putting the questions, to ensure that that type of propaganda becomes pointless. I am just giving an illustration, Sir. The Barisan Sosialis have always maintained that they want merger like Penang and Malacca. You will remember, Sir, that the Member for Queenstown yesterday had to get up and deny vehemently that he ever said it and I quoted from the text of a letter. They know that if we put the Barisan Sosialis merger proposals instead of the White Paper merger proposals to the people, the chances are that the people will reject the former. Yet they go around telling the people, "These White Paper merger proposals are no good because it will mean that most of the citizens of Singapore will have to reapply and pass a language test in Malay." So in view of the attempt by the Barisan Sosialis and their henchmen to confuse the people on the merger proposals, it is necessary for the Government to pose the questions in such a way that the people will vote not for what the Barisan Sosialis allege the White Paper proposals are but for what the White Paper proposals in fact are. Mr Speaker, Sir, many people, not necessarily the Barisan Sosialis, have asked, "Well, why is it necessary for the Government to go through with the referendum on merger? After all, for 15 years, every political Party has made merger a major plank in its political platform. Now after 15 years, merger is a matter of practical politics." It may not be the best type of merger; it may not be a perfect merger. But this is the kind of merger which we, to the best of our ability, have been able to achieve and nobody has been able to suggest anything better than what we have achieved. The Barisan Sosialis counterproposals, when followed to their logical conclusion -

On a point of order, Sir, I thought we were on this messy motion. Are we discussing the White Paper, Sir?

I have tried to steer the debate on this particular motion away from the debate on the merits of one type of merger as against another type of merger. But I have also said that, for continuity of speeches, passing references to these matters could be made. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind and not go into details.

It has been suggested that since we have been elected on the platform of merger there is no need for the Government to go back and refer to the people for fulfilling an election promise we made. It has been suggested that the Government should go ahead and implement the merger proposals. But nevertheless, though constitutionally and even morally the Government has the right to do that, -

P.A.P. right.

- we have other reasons for going ahead with the referendum simply because we know what the Barisan Sosialis, the Barisan Sosialis Communists and their henchmen are up to. I think the Member for Thomson, in the course of his speech, gave an inkling that if this merger goes through there is going to be trouble. We knew sometime ago that sooner or later the Communists having lost out on their ideological battle will have to plunge into the racial battle. They know that they have lost this round in the battle for merger. Merger is coming. They cannot stop it. Therefore, they are interested in what happens after merger. How can they create a situation whereby in the post-merger period -

On a point of order, Sir. I do urge that the rules of the House be observed and that we maintain the speeches to the issue before the House.

I was watching the motion very carefully when the Minister was talking. He is on the verge of becoming irrelevant. But if he is relating his remarks to the expression "inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya", perhaps he should not go into greater details.

Sir, I was saying that we are going ahead with the referendum when we have no need to do so. In bringing up this amendment, we are bearing in mind not the battle for merger but the battle after merger. It is therefore necessary for me to indicate the kind of battle that is going to be fought out. In bringing up this amendment and in going through with the referendum, we are preparing the ground for the coming battle after merger. The Communists have decided that they have lost the ideological struggle for merger and that therefore they must create a situation in which they will ensure that merger leaves in its wake bitterness and perhaps bloodshed. Therefore, if anything happens after merger, say an economic recession, they will be able to say, "There you are, all this is because of merger which was rammed down your throats. The P.A.P. sold you out to the Malays. That is why you are suffering." Therefore, to prevent that sort of thing, it is necessary for us to ensure that merger comes with the approval of the people. The people must be satisfied enough to say, "Well, we voted for the conditions and terms of merger." Though there is no need for the Government to go ahead with the referendum, that is why we decided to go through with it on our own initiative. Nobody prompted us to hold a referendum. We want to ensure that after merger the Communists will not be able to exploit the feeling that they are trying to create among the people that merger is a sellout: it is being rammed down their throats. That is why the Government have -

Why do you not accept the motion?

We do not accept it because it was originally propounded for the glorification of the Member for Anson. He is the paranoic rooster which always crows and says, "Every time I crow, the sun rises." He also wants to give the impression that it was he who forced the Government to bring about a referendum. That is the whole purpose of his motion. The Government's amendment refers to the fact that it was the Government which initiated the referendum because, as I have said, the Member wants to give the impression that the cock crowed and the sun rose. But I say that it is a noonday rooster - a rooster which crows when the sun is in the middle of the heavens. The referendum has already been decided upon. We have already decided to go ahead with it, and the Member for Anson can keep on crowing. But the sun will move in its prescribed course. When it sets, it will set for many Members in the Barisan Sosialis and probably for the Member for Anson as well. That is the reason why we have brought this amendment, to ensure that paranoic roosters do not keep on crowing, "I have got a referendum for the people of Singapore. I. Mr Conscience, have got a referendum for the people of Singapore." This amendment sets out clearly the facts how the referendum comes into being. That is why we have decided to bring this amendment and reject the original amendment put forward by the Member for Anson. Sir, a preview of what is likely to be the antics of the Barisan Sosialis and, in particular, the Communists who are directing them, after merger is this - to give to the merger battle a racial and communal complex. You will notice from their writings in the papers - Mr David Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. Mr Speaker. Sir. I rise again on the issue of relevancy as to the tactics or otherwise of the Barisan Sosialis. At some future time the Minister will have his Radio P.A.P. to make his speech.

There is some substance in the objection of the Member for Anson. I was listening to the Minister carefully. I do not think he should go much further than what he is saying about what will happen in the future. I think he has already touched upon that, and that, I think, is sufficient for the purposes of this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I therefore suggest to the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson, who has now become the devil's advocate for the Barisan Sosialis - he does not pass any strictures on the Barisan Sosialis or make any reference to the Communist connections with the Barisan Sosialis, for he is always slightly discomfitted by any references to the Barisan Sosialis' connections with the Communists. It may be because, as he admitted to the Minister for Health, the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists -

The Minister -

Order. Mr Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been refuted once before; it has been refuted twice before. Are we to keep on having this falsehood recurring?

The Minister has freedom of speech here. He can say what he likes. His opinion is being expressed; maybe he will express it 10 times. The Speaker is here to listen to those opinions. I think the Member for Anson should try and contain himself. He can always refute these statements again. If they are said 10 times, he can refute them 10 times.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in connection with this, he can refute it in the Nanyang Siang Pau. The Member has been silent because he was caught out on what I would say is a falsehood -

Order. I would suggest the Minister does not pursue that line. It is irrelevant.

Anyway, Sir, may I do the same act that the Member for Anson did yesterday? He appealed to the House. He was crowing softly then, because he had hoped, for his own glory, that he might be able to persuade the Assembly to approve his motion without amendment. May I therefore say that this amendment by the Government makes it quite clear that a referendum will be held, that it merely reaffirms what the Government has always stated. Therefore, if the Member for Anson and his bosses in the Barisan Sosialis are genuinely interested in a referendum, there is no reason not to vote for this amendment. If they are really interested in the kind of referendum which will tell us what the wishes of the people really are, they can support this amendment. If the Member for Anson and Members of the Barisan Sosialis want to abide by the wishes of the people, as will be shown in the referendum, they still can support this amendment.

You have deleted that.

But if, as we suspect, they have no intention of either really wanting a referendum or, more important still, of abiding by the results of the referendum, as the Member for Thomson has indicated - he has given a warning of what might happen - then we shall not at all be surprised if they refrain from voting for this amendment, an amendment which states the facts, not the original motion which was intended to give an opportunity to the Member for Anson - as he did in the case of the Education Bill - to say, "I was responsible for forcing the Government to go through with the referendum." If they are really interested in a referendum, there is nothing in this amendment to show that it will in anyway conflict with their desire, that is, to hold a referendum fairly and, most important of all, to give an assurance that the Government will abide by the decision of the referendum. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors should now clearly indicate that if and when a referendum is held and the result of it are announced, there will be no attempt, as the Member for Thomson indicated, to start trouble, because this is 1962. This is not the Hock Lee riot period. That period is past. Any Communist or his stooges who try to use the occasion to foment racial and communal trouble will this time meet a different enemy; not the British; they will meet the force of Malayan -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is the same issue, Sir, the issue of relevancy. Could we limit ourselves to the motion?

Order. I think the Member for Anson is becoming tired. From the way the Minister is speaking, I understand he is in his peroration and is winding Up. Please continue, Mr Minister.

Sir, may I therefore say that this will be indicated by the way the Barisan Sosialis will vote - whether they are really interested in a referendum and abide by the referendum, or whether they are really interested in starting trouble. As I say, if they intend to start trouble, there are people who are prepared to meet it and to deal with those who embark upon a career of trying to plunge this country into the throes, turmoil and tragedy of racial and communal conflict. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you have just heard the usual blah-blah threats and intimidation from the Minister for Culture. But while threatening he is also trying to give a picture of democratic practice on the part of the P.A.P. Government. He says there are people who are asking, why is there a necessity to hold a referendum? But the P.A.P., because they are democratic and just, would nevertheless hold a referendum. Sir, the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister has revealed the iron hand that is hidden in the velvet glove of the P.A.P. To the simple motion of the Member for Anson, the Deputy Prime Minister has seen fit to bring in a lot of controversial matters. The Minister for Culture wants to give the impression that the Government had intended to hold a referendum from the very day the idea of merger was mooted. Let me tell the House that it is widely known in Singapore that such had never been the intention of the P.A.P. I do not need to go very far back, Sir. Probably you will remember the meeting attended by the Ministers in the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. In that forum the Prime Minister was asked a very simple question, whether or not the P.A.P. would abide by the result of the referendum. To that simple question, the Prime Minister gave a historic answer, couched in the most evasive terms possible. His answer was to the effect that history would decide. Now, these few words - "history would decide" - were evasive, hide-and-seek, escapist words intended to confuse, frighten and possibly to condition the minds of the people into accepting whatever the P.A.P. Government was going to suggest to them. The train of events that followed this historic answer of the Prime Minister is well-known. It was commonly talked about in shops, in the streets and in alleys that the Government intended to railroad merger. The Government intended to force it through, whether the people liked it or not. The P.A.P. leaders, knowing full well how closely their own personal fortunes were linked up with their so-called merger, were even willing to sell the rights of the people down the drain in pushing through this merger. They hope thus to get the help of people outside Singapore to prop them up in office. Sir, these are well-known facts. What made it worse was that when the Referendum Bill was put before the Assembly, the Second Reading was postponed. Such postponement of the Second Reading of the Referendum Bill, especially in the midst of the talk in town that the P.A.P. would not hold a referendum after all, only heightened the fear and created more confusion. And to make things still worse during the actual Second Reading of the Bill the Prime Minister said those terrible words which have already been quoted by the Member for Anson. I remember the Prime Minister also said that Singapore would have to have - I will try to quote the words, Sir - "either merger peacefully by consent or merger not so peacefully with unpleasantness". Sir, Singapore has been subjected to a lot of threats, intimidation and even coercion in many ways. In days gone by the Prime Minister used to talk of the cutting off of the water supply in order to clinch his arguments for merger. That already was meant as a threat to frighten the people into accepting whatever he wanted to suggest to the people of Singapore. Similarly today, there are all sorts of threats and intimidation. Those words of the Prime Minister which I have just quoted, Sir, and those words quoted by the Member for Anson, were meant to frighten the people, to cause anxiety and create suspense in their minds. If there is any doubt and anxiety in the minds of the people today, if there is any suspicion of the true intent of the P.A.P. Government, all the blame must rest on the P.A.P. Government, and on the Prime Minister himself in particular. Under those circumstances. Sir, you cannot blame the people for having doubts as to what is, in fact, in the minds of the P.A.P. leaders. It is very well known, Sir, that the P.A.P. leaders know that their merger proposals are not acceptable to the people, but as the Deputy Prime Minister has given an assurance in the House, therefore, the Government is committed willy-nilly to a referendum. But it is a referendum which they will hold grudgingly and very reluctantly. Their second thoughts on the referendum can be seen, Sir, in their amendments to the Referendum Bill itself. I have no wish to touch on the meat of the Referendum Bill itself. I merely want to draw your attention in passing to the fact that they did suggest amendments which have now become the talk of the town. The P.A.P. Government, by these amendments, have shown their intentions behind the actual referendum itself. I will not touch further on it. I am content to leave all further discussion on the matter to the time when we come to consider the Referendum Bill either in Select Committee or on its Third Reading in this Assembly. Now, Sir, in this motion the operative words are "the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification", and the other operative words are in the first line, `the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger". They have also linked up the Barisan Sosialis' stand with theirs, and have wilfully and maliciously distorted the Barisan Sosialis stand in such a way as to give a completely false impression to the people. That incidentally, Sir, tells us what questions they intend to pose to the people. However, I will come to that later. I do not have to mention again the White Paper, because you have already ruled that we need not discuss it as a question in the referendum. Nevertheless, Sir, I wish to stress one point, and that is this: if the P.A.P. really claim that the White Paper has the support of the people and is acceptable to the people, and that it is only the Communists who are opposed to the White Paper merger proposals, then it is easy for them to pose their proposals to the people without fear, as they have already given enough explanation and publicity on them. Sir, in talking of the White Paper, let me answer a couple of points they have raised. I was really surprised at the vitriol that came from the Deputy Prime Minister himself. It was really a surprise to us, because, whether rightly or wrongly, it is believed that amongst all the P.A.P. Front Benches the Deputy Prime Minister, because of his scientific training, would be the most reasonable of the lot. It has been said that the Deputy Prime Minister had in the past - I do not know how far it still holds true, Sir - exerted a sobering influence on the Fascist surroundings around him. Fascist tendencies and Fascist utterances can always be seen in the Minister for Culture and in some of the other Ministers. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Culture say that merger is a P.A.P. pledge. Let me tell them right here and now: it is all poppycock and nonsense, because merger was on the platform of all political Parties in Singapore. If the 1959 general elections had been held on the merger issue, I think the people would have voted in the S.P.A., because - with due respect, Sir, I have no intention of belittling the S.P.A. - at least they have a Tun in their Party. Whereas in the P.A.P. there is hardly anyone of that stature. It is well known, Sir, that relations between the Tun and the Tunku are much better than they can ever possibly be between the Prime Minister and the Tunku. In fact, Sir, quotations of the Prime Minister, when he talked about the Tunku in days of old, can be quite an embarrassment to the Prime Minister today. I remember there was one occasion when the Prime Minister complained of the Tun getting behind the sarong of the Tunku! This is really a disparaging remark. I am sure the Prime Minister could not possibly get to that relationship with the Tunku. Therefore, merger was not the issue on which the P.A.P. was elected. If fact, Sir, the P.A.P. was elected on a number of promises, most of which, alas, have been forgotten.

All of them!

What has happened to the reunification, of the trade unions? What has happened to the release of the political detainees? What has happened to the true and correct implementation -

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. If we are to repeat the sins of the P.A.P., we will have another midnight sitting. Could we, Sir, restrain ourselves to the terms of the motion?

The objection is well taken. The Member for Queenstown perhaps is straying away from the motion.

I crave your indulgence, Sir,I was trying to answer a couple of points which had been belaboured not only by the Deputy Prime Minister but also by the Minister for Culture, one who ought to know something about culture but who does not. When the people talk of merger, Sir, they talk of merger on the basis of justice, equality, and democracy.

Like Penang and Malacca!

For mutual benefit.

I rise again on a point of order, Sir. Could we restrain ourselves to the terms of the motion?

I think it would be best for the Member for Anson to restrain himself and leave it to the Speaker. Dr Lee, please continue.

Excuse me, Sir. This point has to be answered because they have been stressing so much on it, and unless we answer it, there will be no record of them. Today the English newspapers hardly publish anything that we say. All the space is given to the Prime Minister and to the Government Ministers. In fact, I know there are quite a number of people on our side here who have been complaining that they just do not get heard outside the Assembly.

Nearly every Sunday you go around.

Yes, I will come to that. Therefore, it is important - at least for the record - and we hope those who happen to be here will pass the news by word of mouth outside, so that the people will know something in spite -

Order. If the Member for Queenstown is referring to the strangers in the Strangers Gallery, then he is completely out of order. He is addressing the Chair and he must not make any direct or indirect reference to the people in the Strangers Gallery.

I have no intention, Sir, to refer to anybody in the Gallery. But, anyway, it was to suggest that people should be able to help by spreading by word of mouth what we have not been able to convey over the radio and Rediffusion and in the English Press. Sir, when we talk of wanting merger, we do not mean a sell-out type of merger.

Order. There again, the Member for Queenstown is now entering into a debate on the type of merger. We are not on that. We are on this motion which is dealing with the referendum in regard to merger. It does not deal with the type of merger.

I will not speak much more on that except to say this, that although the P.A.P. say that merger is one of their 1959 pledges, let us remind them that Malaysia has never been mentioned in all the P.A.P. manifestoes, nor had it ever been talked about.

Order. Can the Member indicate how that is relevant - whether or not Malaysia was in the manifesto of the P.A.P. I cannot see any relevance.

This is just to prove the point that they are not true to their so-called election pledges. Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has complained that we in the Barisan Sosialis have jumped the gun because, according to him, we have already been campaigning on the referendum in spite of the fact that the Bill is still to be considered in Select Committee. The Minister for Culture also spoke a lot about our Sunday campaign. Both he and the Deputy Prime Minister harped on the fact that it began on 1st April and that, therefore, all those who took part in it and the people we saw were April fools. Surely the Minister for Culture with all his deep learning should know better than that, that even if a couple of chaps here may be fools, he would not consider the people as fools.

The ones who play around you.

I do not know what he means by the people who play around us. Nowadays the P.A.P. is making great play on the wisdom of the people. We saw a Front Bencher running along and holding the railings of a bridge and saying that that is meeting the people. I do not know what happened. There were a couple of men meeting the people, seeing the bridge - An hon. Member: Jumping into the river!

The simple fact is that the P.A.P. today dare not meet the people. They do not dare hold a rally. If they ever hold a rally, they must put on a big show, just like the political Parties in days gone by, which had lion dances and things like that whenever they held a political rally.

Order. I take it that the Member for Queenstown hopes that this debate will end today. I suggest that he be as relevant as he can be so that we can complete this debate as soon as possible.

Our Sunday campaign is not on the referendum because as yet we do not know what the question will be and we still do not know what the provisions will be. The aim of our Sunday campaign has been to expose all the undemocratic and unjust provisions that are embodied in the merger proposals of Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961. The purpose of our house-to-house campaign has been to tell the people the actual meaning of the P.A.P. proposals. Sir, I hope you will allow me to enlighten you on why we have to take this course.

Order. I do not think I can permit that. He has answered the point made by the Government Benches. Let us now proceed with the motion.

I was only hoping to explain to you that today all means of communication have been denied us and even our holding of rallies has been restricted to the constituencies of our Assemblymen. Sir, the Sunday hikes are not undertaken by people with milk dentition. No, Sir, these are house visits undertaken with a special responsibility to the people. It is a duty we have to undertake in order to lay the full facts before the people. If they are asked to decide on any issue, we want to make sure that all the facts are placed before them. Both sides of the picture should be given to them, so that they can decide. All sorts of wild allegations have been levelled at us saying that we preach communalism; that, while on the one hand we sent a letter to the Tunku pledging support for merger and Malaysia, yet on the other hand we were campaigning against a closer relationship between Singapore and the Federation. Our Party platform, which is based on socialist principles, cannot be communal. We do not believe in playing racial politics because what we are fighting for today is not the rights or the privileges of one race over another. We are fighting to improve society. We are fighting to; remove poverty, disease and ignorance -

To become the Prime Minister.

- and poverty, disease and ignorance recognise no communal barriers.

Where did you get such wisdom from?

Sir, in a statement which we issued on 16th April, 1962, it ended with these four lines: `The Barisan Sosialis stands for the units of workers, peasants and intellectuals of all races in Malaya. For this reason, we arc uncompromisingly opposed to any attempt from any quarter to undermine the unity of all races.' Surely, Sir, this is not communalism on our part. By no stretch of the imagination can one link our stand with the stand of communalism. On the other hand, the P.A.P., in their attempt to impose a constitutional arrangement which is completely based on communal prejudices, call themselves nationalists. Sir, for a long time we have been telling the Government that what they are trying to do is really to impose communalism on the people.

Order. Up to now, the Member for Queenstown is in order because he is answering a point made by the Government Benches. But I do not think he should go further into details. If he does, then he becomes irrelevant.

I was only trying to draw your attention to the fact that the proposals of the P.A.P. Government create communal feelings and it is not any political Party or any individual trying to stir up communal troubles. No, Sir. The people have an inborn feeling, they have innate wisdom, and they know what is good for them. When something which is based on communal prejudice is being imposed on them, the natural resistance inside the hearts and minds of these people finds expression. If the P.A.P. Government still insist on rail-roading or pushing merger through in some form or other, then they are really going to stir up a lot of communal feelings which, like a tiny spark that starts a prairie fire, they may find difficult to smother. We who are opposed to all sorts of communal practices have been accused of being communal, while the P.A.P., who support and hope to impose such communal constitutional arrangements on the people, call themselves non-racialists. Of course, Sir, we can understand the strategy of the P.A.P.

Will the Member be speaking a little longer?

Yes.

I propose to suspend the Assembly. I will take this Chair again at half-past Five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.02 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the suspension I was telling the House that it is the P.A.P. who are the true racialists, whereas we in the Barisan Sosialis are totally and completely opposed to racialism and communalism. I was saying that it is, of course, the strategy of the P.A.P. to accuse people first before the truth is fully understood by everybody and before the P.A.P. themselves are accused of inciting communalism. There is a Chinese saying which, when translated, runs like this, "Whoever first takes action is the stronger." The P.A.P. tactic on this communal issue is exactly that. I would urge the P.A.P. leaders not to make conditions worse, because their constant harping on chauvinism and communalism will only tend to widen the differences - whatever differences there may be - and may even create differences where none exists. I hope the P.A.P. will know the dangers that are inherent in such a policy. The Deputy Prime Minister also lightly touched on the letter incident. He even mentioned that our Secretary-General, Mr Lim Ching Siong, went to hand over a letter to the Tunku in Cuscaden Road.

What is in it?

What is in the letter?

Everybody likes to know, Sir,I think it is good to keep some of these people guessing for some time and see how they try to concoct stories to fit in with their theories.

We always catch you out!

The Deputy Prime Minister alleged that we had indicated that we had pledged the Tunku to support merger and Malaysia, and yet were going from house to house fighting against merger. I say that there are no contradictions in our actions. We support anything that is fair, just and equal, anything that gives mutual benefit to the parties concerned. But we are definitely opposed to any form of merger that is based on inequality and injustice and that gives second class citizenship to the people of Singapore, and in general treats Singapore more like a satellite than as an equal. The P.A.P. have made great play of the Penang and Malacca type of merger. Sir, this is a very important issue. They have been harping on it, not only in this Assembly but also outside the Assembly, over Radio P.A.P. and Rediffusion, in all their leaflets and in all their talks. They want to create the impression that the stand of the Barisan Sosialis is that we want a merger like Penang, which, according to them, will deprive half the citizens of Singapore of their citizenship on merger, I had occasion only last evening to say that when the Minister for Culture was reading out the text, he was falsifying many things, because he was reading out of context and with malicious intention to distort the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. Before I read you a small extract which should have been read every time, instead of only just a few words which were read by the Ministers of the P.A.P. whenever they want to say anything against the Barisan Sosialis, may I remind the House that last year, in the debate on the merger issue, it was we in the Barisan Sosialis who moved an amendment to the motion by the Minister for Labour asking for full and complete citizenship rights for the citizens of Singapore. On that occasion the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. opposed it. The other Parties, the Barisan Sosialis, the United People's Party and the Workers' Party, supported the automatic citizenship issue. Let me now, Sir, quote to you - I realise that I am boring you on this -

Order. I do not think the Member for Queenstown is perhaps in order in saying that the Speaker is being bored. As Speaker, of course, he cannot be bored. But as an individual I do not know.

Anyway, Sir, for the record, I think this has to be given lo the House. They have always said that the Barisan Sosialis' stand on merger is for a merger like Penang. Sir, when we mentioned Penang and Malacca, we could easily have said Johore. We mentioned Penang and Malacca as examples, because they were colonies, as Singapore. But that does not mean that we accept everything -

Order. I hate interrupting. The Member has indicated that it is an important point for him. But he must not now invite a debate on this matter. I think he has made his point. He has made his denial and he can supplement it by reading the relevant portion of his letter and leave it at that. He might have another opportunity of giving a more detailed analysis.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I will now, therefore, read to the House our document as issued by the Barisan Sosialis on the 28th August, 1961. That document is the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on our constitutional future. I will skip the irrelevant parts and go on to the part which follows the issue of Penang and Malacca. It reads as follows: `The way ahead for real reunification of our country and our people is in one of two directions: (a) an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constitutent state like Penang or Malacca-' those are the operative words - '(b) as an autonomous unit within a Confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible.' `On the first direction we are fully aware of the difficulties that face us in our struggle for Malayan unity. As a result of colonial rule, the differences of race and religion have been emphasised and much work will be needed to repair the damage done by colonialism.' Now, this is the relevant part which I want to come to, Sir: `However, we declare that if the representatives of the people of the Federation are agreeable to do the same, we will pledge ourselves to wholeheartedly exert our influence to win the people of Singapore to accept full and complete merger forthwith, that is, with Singapore, as the twelfth state of the Federation and with Singapore citizens automatically becoming Malayan citizens with proportional representation in the Federal Parliament like any of the present eleven states constituting the Federation of Malaya. We believe that this is a vital question that can only be decided by the people of Singapore and the Federation. In Singapore we believe that the only genuine way of allowing the people to decide is by a general election during which we will be prepared to persuade our people to give us a mandate for a full and complete merger. Let the Government of the Federation of Malaya tell us if it is prepared to persuade the people of the Federation to accept the people of Singapore in a full and complete merger before 1963.' That, Sir, should put the record straight and stop all these arguments which, to quote the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, are infantile, puerile and totally absurd. Of course, Sir, we realise why they have been stressing on that. In distorting our stand they are also inadvertently revealing their secret intentions to pose that particular question to the people. But in posing the Penang type of merger, they are distorting the truth. They are distorting the Barisan Sosialis' stand, and that has to be clearly understood by the House as well as by the people of Singapore. Sir, the motion now before the House, consequent on the amendment, clearly indicates to the people of Singapore that although the Government will hold a referendum before merger is finalised, there will be no honest referendum because the stress is on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification. Much debate has already taken place on these words and the people of Singapore already know what the intentions of the P.A.P. Government are when they use the words "the mode and the manner". Because, fully realising the legal training the Prime Minister has, we can visualise and understand how the play of words can be used to trick and trap people into accepting something which they do not want. My colleagues have already stressed to the House that these words actually mean that the people of Singapore will be asked to choose between two evils. Many figurative parallels have been given and they all show that the P.A.P., in actual fact, have no intention of consulting the people or of acceding to their wishes, wishes to happiness, prosperity and well-being in the future. I quoted an example here yesterday. Supposing, Sir, two questions are put and both of them are bad and unacceptable. I quoted the example of: "Do you want to die by drowning, or do you want to die by hanging?" Either way you will die. You are not allowed a chance to choose to live, and to live is what you want. None of us want to die, not for such a cause. To give you another example: "Do you like to have your arm chopped off, or do you like to have your leg chopped off?" Either way you get your limb chopped off. I do not think any reasonable man will like any of his limbs chopped off. To take yet another example which may bring us nearer home to the question of merger. This question, for example, could be asked: "Do you want a merger that deprives half the citizens of Singapore of their citizenship, or do you want a merger that gives all the citizens of Singapore second-class citizenship?" Either you have all citizens having second-class citizenship, or you have half the citizens losing their citizenship. Now, how do you expect the people to choose? Both these questions are unacceptable and are completely the result of diabolical machinations of discredited politicians. So, Sir, it can now be understood why there is this constant harping on the Penang type of merger and why they lay so much importance on it. I hope that when it really comes to the question, it should not be about the mode and manner, but it must be a simple and straightforward question. In my original amendment to the amendment to the amendment, I mentioned the White Paper merger. I will not touch on that again. But the principle is, it must be a simple and straightforward question, a one-question referendum which can be easily answered with a yes or a no. That is the only way to consult the people and that is the only way to ensure that the people will understand what the issue is all about and that they can give a straightforward answer. The question must be fair and easy to understand. Examples, Sir, have been quoted about referenda in Australia and Algeria. In the case of Algeria, of course, it is still fresh in our minds. I am sure everybody must have seen how the question was posed. It required only a simple yes on no. The Minister for Culture said that the question should be posed in such a way as not to confuse the people. He said that-not to confuse the people. Sir, if the question is not to confuse the people, then it adds strength to my argument that it must be a one-question referendum. If they are afraid and have no confidence to ask the people about their White Paper proposals, let us set them another question. But it must be a simple one-question referendum. Only then will the people be able to give their views on the matter in a simple, straightforward manner. Only then will the people be able to say that it is a fair and honest referendum. My colleagues have already touched on the dangers to parliamentary democracy in this part of the world. In Singapore, parliamentary democracy is on trial. But from the practice of parliamentary democracy here and from the way the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, has been springing surprises on the Opposition without even a simple gentlemanly consultation regarding procedure, we can see what sort of parliamentary democracy we have from the P.A.P. If parliamentary democracy is going to be abused and made a farce of, then all of us in Singapore will suffer. Everyone can remember the type of democracy which dictators practise in South Korea and South Vietnam and I think we also remember with what dire consequences. And all because of what, Sin? Because of the rigging of elections and undemocratic practices in the election in a so-called democracy. Sir, in Singapore elections have been praised for fairness and have yet to be the butt of severe criticism. Let us not have a referendum that, although it is supposed to be democratic, is actually rigged; and legal rigging of a referendum means, in actual fact, dictatorship under the guise of democracy. They might as well put the bayonet upon the table as they so often harp on the theme that power comes out of the gun barrel.

Mao Tse-tung said that. You have not read the classics.

Doings like these will not give the people confidence in the practice of democracy. It has often been said, Sir, that democracy depends on the practice of those who hold power. What they say when they are not in power means nothing. If they hold power and they practise democracy, then and then only will democracy be true and have real meaning. That is a danger which we have to guard against, and we would urge the P.A.P. that, as they were elected to power by the people, at least for the sake of parliamentary democracy and for the future happiness of the people, they should not pursue a course that will only lead to misery and hardship. We do not say this as a warning in the way that the Minister for Culture has been imputing. But it is clear to all the people of Singapore that this practice of democracy in Singapore has a great bearing on our constitutional future. We in Singapore go by the constitutional practice that has been laid down. Let not those who hold power now abuse this constitutional practice such that the people lose all faith and confidence in this practice. I do not need to say very much more, Sir, except that in the voting for the amendment which has given rise to this new motion, you will have noticed that only the P.A.P. voted against all the Opposition. The point I wish to stress is this: that even the S.P.A. dare not vote with the P.A.P. on this occasion, not that they are not in secret collaboration with the P.A.P. It is well known to the people of Singapore that although on the surface they are not one Party in actual fact they are in deep cahoots with them. What goes on in the P.A.P. is known to the S.P.A., and anything with which the P.A.P. hope to spring a surprise on the Barisan Sosialis is already known to the S.P.A. These are things we know. The fact that the S.P.A. on this particular occasion have not dared to vote with the P.A.P. only shows that even the S.P.A. know what the temper of the people is today against the P.A.P. And they dare not ally themselves openly with the P.A.P., hoping thereby to retain whatever goodwill they still have. And thereby hangs a moral, Sir. The moral is this: let the P.A.P. leaders, and especially the Prime Minister, wake up. Let him realise that what he is doing is contrary to the interests of the people. Let him bear this in mind, if not for himself, and if not for his P.A.P. colleagues, then at least for his Backbenchers and maybe for the people of Singapore.

I have been thinking of you `mostest' of all. A special place!

Let him make sure that the people of Singapore are not sold down the drain. Let him learn the moral from the S.P.A., who dare not even vote with the P.A.P. on this particular occasion. Go back from the perilous course of leading the people down into the abyss from which there is no return. There is a Chinese saying, Sir. It says: if you turn back you will always find land; don't go further into the deep sea. Think of the people of Singapore, and let us hope that, in thinking of the people of Singapore, he will still be able to return to the shore, and so be able to save himself. 6.06 p.m.

Sir, it is difficult to find what is objectionable in the amendment moved by the Leader of the House if the Opposition are sincere in the things they profess to believe in. Everybody in Singapore, every political Party other than half-wits, stands firmly in favour of the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. It has been the political credo of all nationalists and Communists right from 1945 when the British separated the two territories by their constitutional arrangements in the Malayan Union. Therefore, it is difficult to see anyone objecting to these words in the amendment, "in order to hold a referendum". Surely these words, "to ascertain the wishes of the people", cannot be objectionable; "on the mode and manner" - that cannot be objectionable; "of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised", and so on - that cannot be objectionable. But what they find objectionable really is "reunification" under any circumstances other than the which will give the Communists supremacy. That is the bare fact. Yesterday the Member for Queenstown, in one of his off-the-cuff speeches and in an impromptu move, found himself moving an amendment to remove the words "inevitable reunification". Sir, the Communists, or whatever they may be, are basically realistic. They know that reunification will happen and is inevitable. But they also know that when it happens, for a long, long while, they will be cribbed, cabined and confined. And before they are cribbed, cabined and confined, it is their hope to leave behind the largest amount of bitterness and hatred in order that they can feed and grow upon it after merger has taken place. The Member for Queenstown may not know the dynamics and the geometry of revolution. They know that in this round they have lost. The ground is cold, the wrong move has been made, the flanks are wide open. Nothing can be done about it. But a great deal of animosity could be aroused and a sense injustice could be implanted principally in the minds of the Chinese community in Singapore. That is the bare fact of the matter. Nobody is in the least bit taken in by all this nonsense about dictatorship and parliamentary democracy. There is going to be a merger. Everybody has said so. It is the duty of the Government to ascertain the will of the majority. There are no two persons in Singapore with exactly the same thoughts. The process of the democratic system is to try, in so far as is possible, to ascertain the largest common will. The largest common will on this matter is, "We must have merger." Everybody is decided on that. Nobody has said, "No merger." Therefore, the next step is: on what basis should merger take place? Therefore, in principle, I can see no possible objection to the words of this amendment. It is our duty to implement, under the best terms and conditions possible, what is desired by the people of Singapore in conjunction with what is desired by the majority of the people of the Federation. If we want to play around with arithmetic, I say the plebiscite on the referendum could be finished off in one fell stroke. That is the way General de Gaulle put his referendurn. He said, "I have come forward with the Fifth Republic to bring peace. Do you want peace in Algeria?" Mr David Marshall rose -

I was not referring to the Member for Anson. I am sorry if he has mistaken himself for General de Gaulle. I was not referring to him at all.

Point of clarification, Sir.

I quite understand that, Sir,I will surely give him an opportunity.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the referendum in respect of Algeria was "Do the people of France accept the agreement reached between General de Gaulle and the Provisional Government of Algeria?" It was not, "Do you want peace in Algeria?"

This was the latest one. The first one was held over a year ago: "Do you support the policy of peace in Algiers?" This one is: "Do you support the agreement that has been reached?" The details of the agreement have not been published. All that the agreement so far reached and published is that there will be a committee of men who will be in charge of Algiers and its government for a period of months after which Algiers will decide whether it will be in free association with France. That is all. In the same way, if the Member for Anson wishes us to hold a vote on whether there should be merger or no merger, we will be quite happy to do it. Members of this Assembly have all said that there should be merger and that we should never put such a question. Therefore, the next logical step is: what is the mode and manner of merger? It is as simple as that. When we have gone through all these histrionics, and at the end of it all, what it really amounts to is this: can the Communists - and I am not talking of the Barisan Sosialis and the gentlemen here - can the boys who really move the bits and pieces on the chessboard extricate themselves from this checkmate? In this round, the answer is no. But unlike the game of chess, the political struggle goes on. Our purpose is not pulling off what we are constitutionally and legally entitled to do - to go through with merger without the process of a referendum. As I have stated, to do so would be to lend credence to the lie that anybody was sold out to anybody else. The object of a good Government in the circumstances must be to debunk and dispel the lie made primarily to the Chinese community that they will be second-class citizens. Therefore, the alternative is whether they want what the Barisan Sosialis, on behalf of the Communists, have openly espoused, i.e., the Penang or Malacca type of merger or whether they want what we believe to be more -

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

The Prime Minister is not giving way.

I will give way to him, Sir, when I have finished my sentence. That is what they have proposed. We believe this to be more in keeping with the temper and the needs of the people. Why are they afraid to put their proposals to the people? We are not saying that our merger terms are ideal and the best. If we could get the Tunku, his Government, the Malays and the Chinese in the Federation to give us better terms, why not?

Have you tried?

Can anybody have tried harder? He is open to do so.

Distortion -

The Barisan Sosialis even went up to the front door. The Assistant Secretary-General carried a message of peace that he supported merger and Malaysia and wanted to start discussions.

Again distortion.

Winning generals never carry a white flag to talk peace. The purpose of this motion, as amended, is to clear any doubts whatsoever in anybody's mind that, in so far as the will of the majority of the people can be ascertained, that will be embodied in the constitution of the new Federation, which will include Singapore. When we have discharged that duty, then the Members of the Barisan Sosialis and everybody else will have full opportunity, within a much wider campus, within a much larger ambit, and in a bigger arena, to espouse their causes, be they democratic, be they Communist.

Or Fascist!

Or Fascist. But it will then be a fight to the finish. This is the happy position we are in - that we have a guaranteed situation. We have arranged this guaranteed situation so that within the ambit of this arena, Queensberry rules can be enforced and they can be broken only with penalty.

Siamese boxing.

We are here to hear abuse heaped upon us; to hear irrational, wild and base charges repeated with gramophonic regularity. We sit down with patience and in the best of humour and go through all this for one simple reason: that we know that that is the best way to have a calm, collected, rational situation in Singapore. That is the situation which will prevail when the terms of this motion are carried out by or before June 1963. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

I am afraid the Member is now too late.

I was -

Order. I suppose the Prime Minister will be reading Hansard sometime. Mr Marshall, in reply? Mr David Marshall rose -

Will the Member for Anson take his seat? I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill wishes to speak?

Certainly, Sir.

Sir, I would not have cared to rise again to speak on the amendment before the House. But it would seem that the Barisan Sosialis are indulging in a smear. The regularity of their smear is that the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. are nothing but the same Party. Surely, Sir, the S.P.A. have said that the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. are nothing but the same Party. They came from the same rotten egg. There is nowhere they can hide. They came into this Assembly as elected Members of the P.A.P. They sit behind us now as Members of the Barisan Sosialis when the Barisan Sosialis was not heard of in 1959.

Thirteen rotten eggs!

What about the Labour Front and the S.P.A.?

Sir, the truth sometimes hurts. In this particular case, the truth must have hurt some of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis who claim that they are much better than anybody else in this Assembly.

Certainly better than the S.P.A.

Sir, we in the S.P.A. have said in this Assembly that we are not and never will be an irresponsible Opposition. As elected Members of the Assembly, we have a sacred duty to discharge to the people of Singapore, to see that things are right and that we should give all our support to things that are right. But if things go wrong, we should be very, very critical. The Barisan Sosialis, however, Sir, find it necessary to play politics in almost every little thing that comes before this House. They have now done so on a matter on which there is no controversy, on which no Party represented in this Assembly has said that there should be no referendum. All Parties have said that there must be a referendum. Yet so much time has been spent on all these exchanges between ex-comrades, who belonged to the same camp at one time, that the debate has degenerated to the extent that the following words were used: "paranoid rooster", "dictatorship Government", "Fascist Government". Even the Government has gone to the extent of calling the Barisan Sosialis Communist, Communist inspired, Communist front organisation. Sir, let us be done with all these unnecessary bitter exchanges which, boiled down, are nothing but the political jealousy of people who have fallen out. We have all agreed that there must be a referendum. Even the Government has said that there must be a referendum. The Barisan Sosialis want - or do they? - a referendum. But what is more important to the people of Singapore is how the questions are to be posed. It is not the fact that there will be a referendum - that they have lost sight of. They are all worrying as to who is going to claim the credit for forcing the Government to conduct a referendum. The Government has said that it is already committed to a referendum. Therefore, the Government may think it must get all the credit and the Opposition Parties should shut up and should not try to play politics. All that is not necessary, especially in a matter that affects the very livelihood of the people of Singapore. The Workers' Party and the Barisan Sosialis keep on repeating that the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. are working hand in hand. What is this? I would like to say, for the last time in this Assembly, that the S.P.A. will be the only Party that will teach the P.A.P. the real lesson of their lives. It will not be the Barisan, because the Barisan are nothing but the P.A.P. They are the P.A.P. Whether the P.A.P. on that side are discredited or the P.A.P. on this side are discredited is immaterial. They are still the P.A.P. We have said to the electorate that the Barisan are nothing but the P.A.P. They have said that we are going to abstain on this motion because, according to the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, we even dare not support the P.A.P. motion because we know that we will lose the goodwill of the people of Singapore. As a responsible Party, we do not worry about such a thing. We do what is right. And we did what was right when we arrested the Communists in Singapore. We are not like the P.A.P. who keep on describing the Barisan as Communists and yet do nothing about it. We are men of calibre, men of responsibility, and we stand by what we do. Even as an Opposition, if the Government do right, we will support them. We do not have to be like the Member for Anson who attended their industrial estate and came out singing high praises of the P.A.P. We do not want to sing high praises of the P.A.P. If they do right, and if they have done right, we will support them. But we do not sing high praises of the P.A.P. and then conic to this place and call the Front Benches one kind of name, the Back Benches another kind of name, with all the unnecessary exchanges of harsh words like the cock crowing at all times of the day. We do not do that, Sir. We, as a responsible Opposition, do what we think is right for the people of Singapore. We say that a referendum is necessary and that the views of the people of Singapore should be consulted. Let us get away from all this talk about merger, merger, merger. Command Paper 33 is not merger. Do not talk about merger anymore. It is a closer relationship, a step towards reunification of the two territories. So let us forget all this talk about merger when it is not merger. 6.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are opposed to the amended motion in front of the House. The original motion moved by the Member for Anson only wishes to seek an assurance that there will be a referendum on the so-called merger proposals. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amended motion by the Deputy Prime Minister presupposes that there will be a referendum on merger, and I fully agree with the leader of the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance, the Member for Cairnhill, in his speech just now that the White Paper proposals are not merger proposals, because in a merger, that is, in a genuine reunification of Malaya and Singapore, there should be only one type of citizenship and not two types of citizenship. Mr Speaker, Sir, as such, we oppose the first part of the amended motion. I remember that as early as 18th September, we requested the Leader of the House to put the P.A.P. merger proposals to a referendum. A few days later, the Minister for Finance, in a radio forum, agreed that the P.A.P. merger proposals would be put in a referendum to the people for decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not changed our stand on holding a referendum. Since our declaration on the 18th of September till now, our stand has been most constant. The Government wish to claim credit in the amended motion that they are the first to put forward the idea of a referendum. We do not mind the Government taking this credit from us. But what we do mind in the amended motion is that part which says "on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya". Mr Speaker, Sir, the original motion of the Member for Anson only wishes to seek an assurance on the referendum. After the Minister for Finance was committed to a referendum, we felt that the Government had second thoughts on the holding of a referendum to decide on the White Paper. At first, the Government were assured they could win, with the referendum conducted honestly, fairly and squarely. That was why the Prime Minister, in his reply to the Opposition Party leaders on the 12th of October, 1961, assured them that the people would be asked to accept or reject the White Paper.

Order. I think the hon. Member is repeating his speech which he made when he supported the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, and that amendment was inviting the House to welcome the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on merger. I have indicated that that topic is closed because the amendment has been rejected. I have allowed passing references to it, but I think the Member for Hong Lim is going further than just making passing references.

Mr Speaker, my intention is not to deal with it at great length, but just in passing. We will be very happy if the Government can give us a categorical assurance of what is meant by "the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya". What are the questions to be posed to the people in the referendum? We feel that, on the one hand, the Government had hesitated in holding a referendum, but on the other hand, they had already in their pronouncements committed themselves to the holding of a referendum. Therefore, having decided that they must go through with the referendum, they will now pose the questions in such a way that they will be sure to win. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only trying to trace the reason why we feel that the Government have been delaying the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. Meanwhile they have thought of a new loophole to get away with its White Paper merger proposals which the people of Singapore have rejected. 6.35 p.m.

Mr Marshall, in reply? Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

Mr Marshall, in reply. I think the Member for Nee Soon is too late.

I am so sorry.

Mr Marshall.

I beg your pardon, Sir.

This is the third time the Member for Anson has been called.

I am perfectly happy to give way, Mr Speaker.

I think the Member for Nee Soon is too late.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will say that I enjoyed the belligerency of our lion - like Member for Cairnhill today - "We men of character". We are such men of character, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have two minds, and the one mind - which says no is equal in strength to the other mind which says aye; and the one cancels the other out; so we sit on the fence. That is the responsible conduct of a Party on a matter of grave national importance in the Assembly. That is a curious interpretation of responsible conduct of the people's representatives on an issue of national gravity, that they are men of such character that they cannot make up their minds.

Order. The Member for Anson up to now is not out of order in what he is saying. But he is out of order in addressing a Speaker who is not in the Strangers' Gallery. He should address the Speaker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I enjoy watching you. You will forgive me - [Laughter] - sometimes you make a change. We had two speeches from the Government benches. I must confess, Mr Speaker, in the seven years that I have known the Prime Minister - I have watched him here for only a few years - I have never known him so: restrained and so brief. We are accustomed to the Prime Minister, once he gets on his hobby horse about his friends, the Communists, to go on and on and on for hours. I must say I am grateful for the discipline he has displayed today and I can understand his acute embarrassment, having a mind that is not foreign to logic, to have to- come here and defend the shabby position of the Government. He says it is difficult to see what objections there can be to this amendment. He then notes that that is exactly true of the motion that is before the House, which only seeks an assurance that there will be a referendum which will be complied with. He says a great deal of animosity could be aroused if a sense of injustice could be inspired in the Chinese. But that is exactly why the original motion pleaded for a referendum in modest terms. Mr Speaker, what was their difficulty and their objection? Ours, says the -

Minister for Culture.

Thanks. The Minister for Culture. "He was cock-crowing and we did not want the cock to crow." I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that had I known that - it is possible even now - I would gladly have allowed them to resign, remove and withdraw that motion, and let them move it in my place and any time that happens again, I promise solemn secrecy for the passage of the motion; if they want it, they can take it over. You know, Sir, I think you have been here for seven years as a Speaker and you have probably listened to a lot of nonsense, Sir, if I might say with respect, of what is sometimes mentioned here. But I wonder whether you have ever come across anyone with the extraordinary capacity of the Minister -

Order. Before the Member for Anson carries .on, I am afraid he might involve the Speaker more and more in this controversy about the character of Members who have passed through this Assembly for the last seven years, and I do not think he ought to do that. He might embarrass the Speaker.

Mr Speaker, the joy of asking you questions is that unlike a wife you do not have to reply, Sir. [Laughter] Of course, I am biased, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I must confess that never in all my life have I ever come across a human being with the remarkable capacity of the Minister to utter unpleasant noises - [Interruption].

Order.

- which achieve a pathological pattern of English words cemented by the slime of malice to the extent that he does. Mr Speaker, he has told us that he objects - and that is why - to my cock-crowing. But watch the amendment, Mr Speaker - the paranoid amendment - "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand". It is the Government's introduction of the "National", bless the Government. Sir, who is paranoid? Mr Speaker, who is paranoid?

Look at the mirror.

Mr Speaker, the dishonesty of the P.A.P. is typified by the Front bench, but in particular by this Minister, and I will show you examples ex facie curiae in your presence in this Assembly, in this debate, of this blatant, unblushing dishonesty, not that I consider the Minister is capable of blushing, irrespective of his complexion. [Laughter] The first dishonesty was with reference to my so-called misinterpretation of his Prime Minister who made a speech on the 16th of March here, Sir. And he said, "so the question of winning or losing a referendum does not arise," as I quoted it. "If there was the slightest risk of merger being frustrated and the country plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists, let me say that it will be criminal folly on the part of the Government to hold the referendum and to allow the future of Malaya and Malaysia to be imperilled." So, Sir, he is saying - at least I speak English; and you and I speak English, Mr Speaker; it is the official language whatever the P.A.P. English may mean - this means nothing. But if there was a chance the referendum were to be defeated, the man who sought to have a referendum would be a criminal fool. But says the Minister for Culture, his Prime Minister meant, when the Prime Minister continued, "If that were the position, if the risk existed, then it is the duty of the Government to go through with it to ensure the peace, security and happiness of the people, not just for Singapore, but for Malaya." then it means the referendum. So according to him, his Prime Minister is a criminal fool who is prepared, in spite of the risk existing, to go through with the referendum which, according to the Prime Minister himself and by his assessment, it would be criminal folly to hold. That is the first and most blatant dishonesty. Sir, I have watched with interest, and I must say the embarrassment of the Barisan everytime the P.A.P. bring up this question of Penang and Malacca, where the Barisan really put their foot in it through an inadequate understanding of legal technicalities. It is certain to my mind, Sir - I may be wrong - they did put their foot in it and the P.A.P. are making capital to the extent of the most extraordinary distortion. Now, Sir, just watch him who blatantly in your presence in this Assembly so dishonestly misinterprets simple English words. He says, "My Prime Minister meant that despite the risk we would nevertheless go on with the referendum," when there can be no question about the meaning when the Prime Minister said that if there was any risk of losing the referendum, no referendum would be held. That is the Prime Minister that is his democracy, that is the P.A.P. dictatorship. It is nothing new. Sir. The very first speech the Prime Minister made in this House which I read in Hansard was one of anguished longing, looking towards Pakistan, towards Burma and towards Indonesia and telling you how inappropriate democracy was for certain parts of Asia. He fancies himself as a dictator, and this is one of the steps to dictatorship. But let us pass on, Sir. The next dishonesty is this: the Minister has told you here that the Government will abide by the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum. But, Mr Speaker, you circulated to us a copy of the amendment to the motion of reference, no doubt prepared beforehand by the Government, and it says: `To leave out the words "the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed".'. And the words "the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed" have, in fact, now been deleted from the express amendment of this Government and are no longer in the amended motion before the House. That is the second blatant dishonesty of the Minister for Culture in your presence. He says that the Government intentionally and consciously in writing sought the defeat of that part of the motion which says that the Government will abide by the wishes of the people. It expressly excides it, and it stands deleted, and it is no part now of the Government amendment. So what is this hypocrisy that the Government will abide by the wishes of the people when it intentionally asked for and obtained the deletion of that phrase? Now, Sir, the third one: that it is the desire of the Government to abide by the wishes of the people and to find out whether they wish it or not. If I may, Mr Speaker, in passing, point out what has been ably brought out by the Member for Hong Lim - that there was an assurance given by the Prime Minister that the people would be given an opportunity to reject or accept the arrangements arrived at with the Government of the Federation of Malaya, and that it would be by a referendum. But the Government defeated the very amendment which sought to put that, and that is the amendment of the Member for Queenstown. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Culture has complained to the bankrupt Opposition: What alternative have the opposition got to their proposals?

Order. It is part of the Speaker's duty to know who is speaking. And if the Member changes his voice, I do not know whether I am right in saying that the Member for Anson is speaking or not. I would suggest to the Member for Anson that he uses his natural voice.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, it goes against the grain of my natural voice to repeat words said with such hypocrisy by the Minister. But I will accept your ruling, Sir, and I will seek to comply with it. The Minister for Culture complained that the Opposition had no alternative proposals. Mr Speaker, has the Opposition been given any opportunity? You yourself are aware that in this very House the motion which suggested that there should be an All-Party conference on the subject to which we might be able to contribute, was defeated. And I say with respect, Sir, I believe that Opposition Members have constructive ideas to contribute which could make possible the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya ultimately, and a phased reunification with an immediate closer relationship not very far off from the existing one but with minor and, to my mind, necessarily acceptable changes. But what opportunity have we had to present these views? Would the Government listen? Mr Speaker, what is the difficulty.., asked the Prime Minister, that we find with this amendment? Well, I could stomach the cock-crowing. We have to stomach so much more from these gentlemen opposite that, in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, it is not merely the cock-crowing part, but their stand on the question of merger, Sir. Does anybody know, except that they introduced a motion last year asking us to affirm our faith in merger when, in fact, as the Member for Cairnhill quite rightly said, supported by the Member for Hong Lim, they were not talking of merger at all. What is their clearly stated stand, except the stand of hypocrisy and deception? Now, Sir, excepting that stand of deception, "this House welcomes the Government's introduction". Mr Speaker. I have already said, and you have heard, we welcome the introduction. But they want it repeated, and I will repeat it for Radio P.A.P. and I have no doubt the Minister will see it is carried, "We welcome the introduction of the National Referendum Bill." Sir, you will notice that it does not say "and assures the House that the wishes of the people will be ascertained". There is no assurance. It points out that the referendum machinery can be used. It does not mean it must be used. There is no assurance as sought by the original motion that it will be used "to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification". Sir, I am afraid I do not know which constituency the hon. Member sitting on the extreme left of the U.P.P. comes from, but he gave a rather homely example. He said something like this: "We all agree that we like rice." That is so, Sir, and if I might add that the Government's questions would want to be: "Do you want it cooked with arsenic sauce served for lunch or with opium served for dinner?" Mode and manner! Not, Sir, "Do you want rice served for dinner?" Ah, no. Do you help the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification? Mr Speaker, all that the Member for Queenstown's amendment sought was to clarify the original motion by saying "to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether they want the White Paper arrangements or not." But that was defeated. And now we have, "the mode and manner", and they tell you, "We are democrats." Yes, democrats. Not only do they leave it at "the mode and manner" but supposing it is permitted - I do not know whether it will be permitted or not - and you cross out both the opium and arsenic and indicate you want neither, there is no assurance that the Government have specifically permitted any suggestion of any promise to comply with the wishes of the people. And yet they complain of abuse because they are told - and this is the truth - that they are the ones who will kill democracy and who are killing democracy in this country. Mr Speaker, here is one delightful little vignette. I went into a butcher's shop in my constituency and I said to an elderly man through an interpreter: "Do you think there will be a referendum?" He said, "Oh, yes, the Government promised." And I asked, "That's fine. Now what would you do if, in the referendum, the Government said, `Would you like to beat your wife or would you rather beat your daughter?' ". Do you know what his reply was, Sir? He said, "That can't happen. It won't be democratic. It isn't democracy." Now, Sir, here is a simple man, and it is good to feel that he genuinely believes in the integrity of the democratic process - that dishonest things like that could not happen. To him it is as simple as that. And if it happens, Mr Speaker, do you not visualise what it would do to his faith in democracy? And the faith of all the tens of thousands of others who have a far greater measure of appreciation and recognition of the value of democracy and a desire for it than any of us recognise. What will it do to them? Who is destroying democracy in this country? There can be but one answer, and that answer has been proved in the shameless smokescreen of this amendment of the P.A.P. which seeks to transform a simple but precise motion of assurance, to which no one who is not a Machiavelli, could take objection, into a nebulous motion that means little, if anything, leaving everything to the Government. "mode and manner" will be interpreted as the P.A.P. pleases. And if the Minister for Culture is given an opportunity, you will probably need to know all the languages and put them in one drum, shake them all up together, and you will have to get a dictionary to interpret what the P.A.P. means. Because, Sir, the Minister has told you that if I say to him, "It rains. Go out and check," let me assure you that if he tells me that it is raining, I will not go out and check; I am sure it has not rained and it is not raining, because I know one thing: he is pathologically incapable of telling the truth or speaking with reasonableness or decency to any Opposition Member or any of his opponents. The P.A.P. are quite incapable in politics of playing straight or playing honest. They have shown it to us. The people have trusted them. Mr Speaker, in an incipient democracy one cannot blame the people for making the mistakes that they have made. And the virtue of democracy is that within a period that mistake can be rectified. But it seems that our people having made a mistake that is understandable, will never have an opportunity to rectify it because the advantage having been gained by the P.A.P. with their - what was the phrase used by the Member for Cairnhill? - paranoid ambition, is it? I do not know whether the word was "paranoid", but let me not use words that I do not know. But certainly it was with an extraordinary ambition that exceeds normal human bounds, an ambition that considers itself beyond all morality, beyond all decency; their personal ambition supreme over the people's will. How they sit, glued to those chairs of theirs. How they sit and want to sit and want to continue to sit. And they talk of me as seeking to take credit. I left my chair without any need to do so, because I considered it contrary to the welfare of the people that there should be a government continuing to be headed by me, giving them the impression that the provisions which were brought back from England were legitimate. Sir, let us pass on from that to the recognition that the position has been reached where our people, having made the mistake of trusting these persons on the Front Bench, are now to remember them for the rest of their lives and their children's lives and to regret it. And the people's only hope is not any more in their personal representatives, for the S.P.A. could help us and can still help us to defeat this amendment, except that they have got two minds, neither of which can agree with the other and none cancels the other, and with their sense of responsibility they sit on the side-line. The people can no longer expect. And though the newspapers will not carry it, I make one further plea, Sir, before sitting down. That is a plea to our brothers across the Causeway not to condone or lend themselves to this conspiracy of the P.A.P. to perpetrate a major act of perfidy upon the people of Singapore. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Point of order?

I rise under Standing Order 43(4) .

The Member for Cairnhill claims that he has been misunderstood in some material part of his speech. Tun Lim.

Mr Speaker, I have said that we are men of character and that we will do what is right for the country. But the Member for Anson has tried to ridicule our claim and said that if we were men of character we should be able to make up our minds on this motion before the House. I have given reasons why we are not voting either for or against this motion because we will take no part playing party politics in this Assembly. The Alliance does not prostitute itself to any Party -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is this not a speech?

The Member for Anson always rises on a point of order when I have not even heard what is being said. I have not at the moment discovered anything out of order in what the Member for Cairnhill is saying.

Thank you, Sir. We are not voting either "aye" or "nay" on this motion because we will not indulge in party politics in this august Chamber. We will abstain. We say that a referendum is necessary. Everybody in this House has said it is necessary. So be it. But we will not side one Party or the other Party so as to help them claim credit that it was they who got this motion through. We are men of character and we will not prostitute ourselves.

Order. The Member has made his point. Question put, "That in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia."

Division. The House divided and the Clerk proceeded to call out the names of hon. Members - Upon the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew being called -

Paired.

From the information I have got, the Prime Minister has paired with the Member for Farrer Park. The Member for Farrer Park is absent. So it makes no difference.

He told me that he wished it to be recorded as paired.

He wishes it to be recorded as paired. He will be so recorded. The voting was as follows :- Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Omar Junid. Chan Sun Wing Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Miss Chan Chee Seng. Lee Siew Choh Chan Choy Siong. Leong Keng Seng Madam. Lin You Eng Chor Yeok Eng. Lingam, S.V Goh Chew Chua. Low Por Tuck Goh Keng Swee. Marshall, David Hoe Puay Choo, Ng Teng Kian Madam. Ong Chang Sam Kandasamy, G. Ong Eng Guan Lee Khoon Choy. Sheng Nam Chin Lee Teck Him. Tan Cheng Tong Lim Cheng Lock. Tee Kim Leng Mammen, John. Teo Hock Guan Mohd. Ariff bin Wong Soon Fong Suradi M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Absent Sahorah binte Ahmad bin Ibrahim Ahmat, Madam. Bani, S. T. Tan Kia Gan. Koh, C. H. Toh Chin Chye. Lee Kuan Yew Wee Toon Boon. (paired with Mr Yaacob bin A. P. Rajah). Mohamed. Rajah, A. P. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Lim Yew Hock. Mohamed Ali bin Alwi. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Thio Chan Bee.

Before I declare the result, I think I had better clear the position as regards a pair. A pair is really only necessary when there is a specific "aye" on one side as against a "no" on the other side. But any Member may, if he so desires, wish it to be recorded that he has made arrangements to be paired. Accordingly, against the Prime Minister's name on the record will appear the words "paired with Mr A. P. Rajah". Mr A. P. Rajah, of course, will be recorded as being absent. There are 23 Ayes; 16 Noes; 6 Abstentions and 6 Absent. Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye] Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Seven o'clock p.m.

Wednesday, 18th April, 1962 The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 18th April, 1962 :-

To ask the Prime Minister what is the area occupied by the Royal Singapore Golf Club and the terms on which such lands are held.". The Prime Minister, not being present to answer the question, the following answer was supplied on 18th April, 1962, pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (3):- "The Royal Singapore Golf Club occupies an area of approximately 270 acres out of a total of 7,573 acres of City Council catchment land. This is covered by two separate Agreements:-