Hansard, 1962-07-09

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Madam Hoe Puay Choo (Bras Basah) - from 7th July to 14th July, 1962.

I beg to move, That the proceedings on the items of business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 12 midnight. Question proposed.

May I rise on a point of explanation?

Yes.

I am much obliged. Mr Speaker, Sir, the first three items are introduced today. The Assembly agreed on Friday night that items 4 to 11 should be concluded by Wednesday night. Am I to understand that the Leader of the House will be postponing items 1, 2 and 3 until after item 11, Sir?

I have no information as to that. But I think we will first take a vote on the Question which has been put to the House, that is, that the items of business be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 12 midnight.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the items of business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 12 midnight.

Any further business motion? Dr Toh Chin Chye indicated in the negative.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report as contained in Paper L.A. 10 of 1962. Sir, this Report ---

I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Point of order.

--- whether it is proper, in the light of the motion passed by this Assembly on Friday limiting certain items of business up to Wednesday night, to introduce new items during the course of these sittings, Sir.

It is in order under the Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker, this Report deals with the matter which the Member for Anson had wanted to raise in this Assembly on the case of Sardara Singh, former Acting Sergeant in the Singapore Police Force. Subsequently it came to my knowledge that the Member for Anson was also a solicitor for the said Sardara Singh, and I drew your attention to the fact that (his could probably be committed to the Committee of Privileges for investigation. The Committee has met and produced this Report. It has been agreed that if the Member for Anson had raised the matter of the case of Sardara Singh in the Assembly and in the manner he proposed he could have come within the mischief indicated in the preceding paragraphs and could have been dealt with accordingly for abuse of privilege or for dishonourable conduct. However, the Committee investigated also the desirability of framing a general resolution to cover the matters raised but considered that in the light of the above it was not necessary to do so. Mr Speaker, when a person has acquired three "P.s" to his name - meaning, privilege, profit and power - he is virtually in an unassailable position. During the debate on the amendments to the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, the Member for Anson admitted that an advocate and solicitor was in a special position of privilege and also in a position of profit. Here I would like to add that when an advocate and solicitor also becomes an Assemblyman, particularly if he is on the Opposition Bench where he does not have to bear responsibilities, he also acquires his third P. - meaning that he acquires power. Now, normally a member of the Bar would be responsible to the body that controls his profession, which is the Bar Committee. The Bar Committee can haul a fellow member over the coals if there has been a breach of etiquette. But if an advocate and solicitor is also a Member of the Assembly, and he is given liberty to speak in this Assembly on matters which probably touch upon his professional work, he would be in a position not only to enlarge his profit from the advertisement he gains in this Assembly but also he would be in a position of power. However, such a person could not be disciplined by the Bar Committee. Under the Powers and Immunities Ordinance of Assemblymen, such an advocate and solicitor cannot be hauled over the coals by his professional body. However, it does not mean that we should allow a person to exercise his power and his privilege in an unrestrained manner. If a professional body is powerless to discipline its member by virtue of the fact that he is also a Member of the Assembly, then it is up to this House itself to discipline its own Members. Parliamentary democracy can only succeed, Mr Speaker, if Assemblymen exercise restraint and self-discipline. If there is absolute licence of speech and if there is any attempt to get away with the penalties for which he would nominally be guilty of if he were outside the Assembly, it would mean, Mr Speaker, that the reputation of this Assembly would be brought down to a very low level.

Umm ---

I hear a grunt from the Member for Anson. But I am quite sure that he in his uprighteousness does want to uphold parliamentary democracy. I know he tries very hard to restrain himself at times, but, as they say, the body is weaker than the spirit. However, the lesson which we wish to draw from this Report is this, Mr Speaker, and that is that Assemblymen, especially those who are professional men, in particular advocates and solicitors, must remember that they are in a position of privilege, profit and power, and commensurate with these special qualities that they have acquired they should also exercise equal responsibility.

Hear, hear! Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, there is an air of unreality in discussing privilege and the dignity of the House in the context of the throes of the struggle for the survival of democracy itself through which we are going today. I shall not be long, Sir, nor shall I seek to contest this ruling particularly in the light of the fact that every minute we are discussing this we are taking away that much time from a much more crucial question which is subject to a guillotine provision. I would like to draw attention to one or two points, Sir, just for the record. It is inaccurate to suggest that there was anything but a willingness and desire on my part that this matter should be clarified. Having come across some vital information which I considered would affect the view of this House in respect of certain matters concerning the administrative conduct of statutory provisions, I had wished that this House should know of it, after my client had ceased to be my client and he had left this country and the result of whatever took place here could have no effect on him. When I gave that indication, I learned that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the House was unhappy as he thought that I might contravene the privilege provisions. If you will remember, Sir, I had indicated that in those circumstances I would wish, rather than speak on it and possibly contravene any privilege provisions, that the matter should be considered by the Committee of Privileges. I am delighted that you saw fit to consult the Fourth Clerk at the Table in the House of Commons and I find myself in complete agreement with his stand as indicated in paragraph 10: 'I think that it might be accepted as a broad general principle that a Member would be in contempt (of the House) if his advocacy in Parliament of a matter in which he had been professionally engaged was in any way proved to be due to a desire to show that he was continuing to give value for the fee marked on his brief. If, however, his parliamentary activities were completely divorced from a furtherance of his lay client's interests at law, there would seem to be no objection.' And in point of fact, Sir, that was my stand. However, I can understand the unhappy position in which the Committee found itself where it received the memoranda and representations from the Bar Committee. I refer to the Chairman of the Bar Committee who was asked what if a Member of the Bar in the course of his professional duties learned of matters of national importance and thereafter ceased to act and had his client's permission. And he said that it would be objectionable still. One can only believe that that was his view because he is not a national of this State and it had no reality in the context of his representations. But he says in paragraph 16 that the Bar Committee would still take objection: 'I would still take objection because it seems it could be deemed that the lawyer mentioning this matter would be seeking to attract trade by advertisement.' Sir, my view is very simply this. If it can at any time be shown that a member of the Bar who is an Assemblyman has acted whether within or without this Assembly utilising his position in the Assembly for purposes of furthering his client's interests or for purposes of furthering his personal interests in attracting trade, then he has acted in a grossly improper fashion - whatever name you may call it by - under the Privileges and Immunities Ordinance of this House, Sir. But where it is completely divorced from any ulterior motive of that character, then there can be no question, as the Fourth Clerk at the Table of the House of Commons said. But I do not wish to lengthen this debate. I shall move no amendments, Sir, I merely wish to record that I am happy that no general principle has been enunciated by the Select Committee which could fetter future Assemblies. I take note that the Select Committee went no further than to say that if I had raised it, and had my conduct been of a certain character in the presentation of the Sardara Singh case, I could have been brought up. I shall not bring it up. In the context of the composition of this House, I shall not take that risk. 2.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I am glad the Member for Anson at least has accepted in principle the Report of this Committee of Privileges and the assurance that he, for one, opposes any attempt by any advocate and solicitor to utilise his position in this Assembly for further gain and profit outside. I am sure that is a sentiment which Members of this House will agree with, and I have nothing further to say to it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report as contained in Paper L.A. 10 of 1962.

Order for Third Reading read. 2.48 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had a feeling that this Bill might well arouse a raging controversy between the Singapore traders on the one hand and the Singapore manufacturers on the other. This Bill seeks to regulate the manner in which a Tariff Advisory Commission is to conduct its investigations on any proposals to impose tariffs in Singapore. As such, therefore, the Bill seeks to change from time to time the free port status of Singapore. There was an expectation then that a controversy might rage between the upholders of a 100 per cent free port status of Singapore on the one hand, and the manufacturers who want to see new industries as fast as possible on the other hand. When the Bill was sent to Select Committee, the usual processes were set on foot, including advertisements in the papers asking for views of interested parties. A strange thing then happened. There was absolutely no response to these advertisements and the closing date for reception of memoranda had to be extended. Finally, two parties made their submissions, namely, the Joint Chambers of Commerce, who were somewhat apprehensive of the provisions of this Bill, and the Singapore Manufacturers' Association, who welcomed the general provisions of the Bill. We had a fairly cordial and friendly discussion with the interested parties in Select Committee, as a result of which two amendments were introduced and approved by Select Committee. May I draw the attention of the House to these two amendments? They are in clause 6. There is an addition to clause 6 and the additional sentence reads as follows - I should mention that clause 6 allows the Commission to co-opt, on an ad hoc basis, two or more persons with special knowledge of the subject at the inquiry. An amendment was made to this clause to allow and, in fact, to make it compulsory that one of these persons shall represent industrial interests and the other shall represent trading interests. This amendment was made after the Select Committee heard the views of the representors and agreed that they had a strong case. So clause 6 contains this additional sentence which reads: `At least one of such persons shall be a person representing industrial interests and one other shall be a person representing trading interests.' The other amendment occurs in clause 9 (2) (a) (ii) in page A3, line 27 of the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill. This gives effect to the proposal tabled by the Member for Tanglin who desires that the Commission should investigate, among other things, the effect of tariffs on the general level of employment in Singapore. And this, I think, Members of the House will agree is a completely unexceptional request and accordingly the Government agrees to the inclusion of this amendment. The other clauses do not call for any comment from me at this stage as they have been dealt with adequately, I think, on the Second Reading. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 2.54 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." This Bill is for the most part consequential on the passage of the Tariff Advisory Commission Bill. But in Select Committee, I took the opportunity of proposing certain amendments which were accepted and these amendments dealt with the quantum of draw-back which local cigarette manufacturers may receive on the export of their cigarettes overseas. As the Customs Ordinance stands, the quantum of draw-back is limited to seven-eighths of the total duty paid on imported tobacco. The amendment allows the drawback to be paid to manufacturers up to the full amount. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill, together with the complementary Local Government Integration Bill, which will be moved by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has been drafted to carry out the P.A.P.'s programme of unified administration as outlined in The Tasks Ahead. Therein we pointed out the peculiar position in Singapore of two parallel administrations - the Central Government and the City Council - existing side by side and duplicating each other's functions and activities. We were against such a wasteful and expensive system of government for such a small island and proposed to rationalise the administrative structure. Sir, the implementation of this policy of integration was phased in three stages: 1. The administrative integration of the City Council Departments into relevant Ministries of the Government. 2. The financial integration which was completed with the coming into operation on the 1st of January, 1961, of the Property Tax Ordinance and the Local Government Financial Integration Ordinance. These two Bills, the Public Utilities Bill and the Local Government Integration Bill, will mark the fruition of our policy of unified administration. When this Bill comes into force and the Public Utilities Board is established, integration will be legally completed. Sir, incorporated in this Bill are those sections of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, which are applicable to the three trading departments of electricity, water, gas and their duties, powers and responsibilities. Regard is also being paid to the relevant legislation, including the Federation of Malaya Electricity Ordinance, 1949, the Housing and Development Ordinance, 1959, and the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance. The Explanatory Statement adequately indicates the intention and purpose of the Bill. As it is the intention to refer this Bill together with other related Bills involved in this exercise of integration to a Select Committee to allow for careful study before enactment, I do not propose to elaborate on the detailed provisions of this Bill. Sir, the purpose of sending it to Select Committee is in order to allow all interested parties to make their representations. It may well be, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these representations will entail a redrafting of the Bill when it is submitted to the House again later in the new Session after the Assembly has been adjourned sine die and prorogued. Question proposed. 2.59 p.m.

There is just one provision in the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, on which I would like to touch, which seems to involve the question of principle, and the principle is one which affects the authority of the Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, the power to borrow money as set out in the various clauses here seems, in some way, to infringe upon the rights of the Assembly in so far as the monies of the State are concerned. Take clause 23 onwards, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is no doubt that the Board must be given ample powers to borrow money and, as such, it must be able to fix its rate of interest and the terms and conditions upon which repayment will be effected. I fully appreciate all that. I also appreciate that the Board will be in a very different position from what the City Council was, because the City Council was an institution which had been in existence for some considerable time. It had property of its own and all the loans which were raised by the City Council for its public utility undertakings were a charge upon all the assets of the City Council. That being so, it was possible to induce the investing public to take up those loans. But the Board will naturally be in a different position. All its assets will be assets which are not marketable assets, and therefore the borrowing powers to that extent will be largely hampered from a security point of view. Therefore, it is necessary that these loans should be underwritten by the Government. I fully appreciate that. But there is a provision in the Bill which says that if the revenues of the Board are insufficient to meet payments from these loan liabilities either incurred in the past or in the future, then they shall be a charge on the public debt of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, under the Constitution, any charge on the public debt is not an item arguable in this Assembly. It is an item of statutory expenditure which the Government automatically gets. This is a question of principle which, I think, the Assembly is rightly interested in, although I do appreciate the difficulties of the situation. The position could arise, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a great deal of money could be borrowed by the Board, naturally with the consent of the Minister, and yet the Assembly would find itself unable to do anything about it because any expenditure in the way of repayment will be a public debt. The Assembly will be powerless. I do not know what the solution is; perhaps the Minister might think of one, but I raise it as a matter which concerns the rights of the Legislative Assembly. 3.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to clause 19, I would like the Government, or the Select Committee when it sits, to pay attention to it. It may sound to be a matter of detail, Mr Speaker, Sir, but it is a detail that is causing hardship to a very large number of poor people in Singapore. So perhaps the Select Committee will pay attention to this detail. Clause 19 provides that the Board may cut off supply in default of payment. I do know of people, especially those occupying S.I.T. flats, who are asked to pay a deposit of $40/- or thereabouts. Now, if for months and months they have used these facilities to the sum of $7/- or $8/-, they would still have a balance of $32/- on deposit. But by virtue of clause 19, immediately they default payment for the first time, although they have a big deposit left there, they will still be deprived of their supplies. And to get their supplies resumed, they will have to pay not only what they are asked at that time but also the expenses incurred by the Board in so cutting off the supplies and resuming them.

Order. I heard the hon Member say it was a matter for the Select Committee. I think she has made her point, and perhaps she will send a memorandum to the Select Committee on this particular point. 3.04 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving the Second Reading debate on this Bill, the Prime Minister said that the Government dealt with the third stage of the integration of the local government with the Singapore Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, with this Public Utilities Bill the establishment of the Public Utilities Board will change the situation in Singapore and that of all the people in Singapore. It will also affect the procedures in public utilities. We hope the supply of gas, water and electricity from the Board will be complete and better than at present. I would also like the Prime Minister to assure the House that the establishment of the Public Utilities Board will not increase the expenses of the people of Singapore in regard to water and gas supplies. I would like him to ensure, too, that he would not increase the charges for water, gas and electricity because this will greatly affect the people of Singapore, especially the common people. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have seen that before the establishment of the Housing and Development Board, i.e. during the time of the S.I.T., the rents fixed at that time were not as high as those after the establishment of the Housing and Development Board. So after the establishment of the Public Utilities Board, will this Board take the same step as the Housing and Development Board and increase the charges for water, gas, and electricity supplies? I hope the Prime Minister will give an assurance to the House that the charges for electricity, gas and water will not be increased in future. Mr Speaker, from this Bill we can also see that the past City Council staff, i.e. those who worked in the Gas, Electricity and Water Departments, will be integrated and transferred to the Public Utilities Board. We hope the staff at present in the three Departments will enjoy the same benefits even after they have been integrated. Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome the commitment of this Bill to a Select Committee. We hope the Select Committee will consider in greater detail the opinions of the people concerned and also will arrive at conclusions more beneficial to the people. 3.10 p.m.

Sir, the point made by the Member for Farrer Park was one which was considered by a Committee which went through the Bill together with the World Bank. A large sum of money will probably have to be borrowed from the World Bank for extensive expansion of both our power supply and our waterworks. Therefore, the views of the World Bank as to the proper safeguards and provisos that there should be in the statutory provisions regulating the conduct of the Board are of some importance to us. Sir, I do not wish to go into details regarding this. Needless to say, the World Bank, before it advances large sums of money which may well amount to over $100 million altogether, would want to be assured that there are sufficient guarantees on repayment and certain guarantees on the proper conduct of the business of the Board. As for the points made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang, I think they are not worth any specific replies. Nobody has ever moved any Bill in this Assembly by which charges have gone up, to the detriment of the public, or by which the conditions of service of the employees of the Government Departments who have been transferred to the Board have been worsened. I think they are the usual propaganda points made over and over again in the hope that they may win votes. I do not think we are losing any, and so I shall not bother to reply. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection -[The Prime Minister].

Order for Second Reading read. 3.13 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." You will recall, Sir, at the Budget session last year I mentioned that the integration of the City Council into the Central Government was a major administrative reform undertaken by the People's Action Party Government. I touched at some length on the make-up of the City Council and the manner in which it was proposed to integrate it into the Central Government. Since 1st January, 1961, the physical integration of the City Council other than the three trading departments has been in progress, and administratively and operationally they have been absorbed by various Government Ministries. This major administrative reform is in accordance with the pledge of the Party to bring about a smoother and more efficient public service to serve the people of the State. In the process, duplication of functions that had previously existed has been removed, and it is expected that in the long run economies will be effected and efficiency raised. Sir, the Bill before the House is complementary to the Public Utilities Bill which was earlier moved for a Second Reading by the Prime Minister, and it provides for the transfer to the Government with retrospective effect from the 1st January, 1961, of all assets as well as liabilities and employees of the City Council and of the Rural Board other than those transferred to the Public Utilities Board for the running of water, gas, and electricity undertakings. These are contained in Part I of the Bill. It also enacts in Parts II to VI and VIII all provisions of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, relating to streets, sewage, public health, etc . - matters which hitherto have been within the jurisdiction of the City Council and the Rural Board - and vests the necessary statutory powers in Government officers. The only new legislation is in Part VII which establishes District Offices and gives certain powers to District Officers. The enactment of this Bill will formally complete the Government's policy of integrating local authorities into the central administration. Since it is proposed to refer the Bill to Select Committee for closer examination and since the Explanatory Statement gives the objects and reasons of the Bill, I shall confine my remarks to two important aspects of the Bill: namely those concerning personnel and finance. The Bill provides that all employees of the City Council who are not transferred to the Public Utilities Board shall be transferred to the service of the Government at the same rate of pay or as near as may be the same conditions of service as those on which they were employed by the City Council. Upon the coming into operation of this Ordinance, these employees will become Government servants and will legally be governed by Government regulations and by the Constitution. But it is our intention, in so far as salaries are concerned, that all serving employees on the permanent establishment of the City Council shall be allowed to retain, if they so desire, their existing salaries and salary scales on their transfer to the Government service. With regard to other terms and conditions of service, it is hoped, in consultation with the Staff Unions concerned, to bring about a set of conditions of service that would be acceptable and which would be patterned on the terms and conditions now applicable to Government servants. It is envisaged that in the process certain minor adjustments and changes may be necessary. The Bill also provides that persons transferred from the City Council who are already members of the Municipal Provident Fund will continue in membership of that Fund. In addition, such persons who are eligible for membership of the Fund at the time of transfer to the Government service will retain that eligibility. Officers of the City Council who are not members of the Municipal Provident Fund nor are eligible for membership thereof will be governed by the Pensions and Central Provident Fund Ordinances in every respect as they are applicable to Government servants. Persons appointed after the coming into force of this Bill will, of course, be governed by the Pensions Ordinance and the Central Provident Fund Ordinance. The management of the Municipal Provident Fund will be transferred to the Government together with all its assets and liabilities, and the accounts thereof will be kept by the Accountant-General. The assets and liabilities connected with the public loans of the City Council, including the sinking fund for those loans, are to be transferred to the Public Utilities Board under the Public Utilities Bill, but the Government will contribute to the Board in respect of those portions of outstanding public loans which were used to buy assets to be transferred to the Government under this Bill. As I said earlier, the only new provision in this Bill is the establishment of District Offices. The principal function of District Officers is to ensure the adequacy of various services provided in the districts, to receive representations, and generally to act as liaison officers in the districts with respect to matters coming within their jurisdiction. It is envisaged that certain functions and powers of the Government Ministries, in particular the Ministry of Health and the Public Works Department of the Ministry of National Development, will be delegated to the District Officers so that a more efficient and quicker service can be provided to the people in the rural areas. This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure in the payment of salaries and operational expenses of various Government departments integrated with those of the Government. These expenses were formerly chargeable to the Municipal Provident Fund. The amounts cannot at present be fully ascertained but will be dependent on the services to be provided and improvement works to be carried out by the Government under the Ordinance. However, this extra financial expenditure is in reality not so for these services had in previous years been borne by the City Council and the Rural Board. It is the Government's hope that when the administrative machinery of integration is fully implemented there should, over a period, be overall savings to the Government in that additional costs from duplication of functions and services will have been reduced, if not totally removed. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

This Bill is namely a re-enacting Bill which is, at the same time, seeking to integrate the services now carried on statutorily under the Local Government Ordinance into the Government. As such, I have nothing much to say. But there are two or three provisions in this Bill which seem to involve questions of principle which I think I might raise straightaway. Mr Speaker, Sir, under clause 2, the repeal of any Bill leaves any regulations under the Repeal Bill effective as law, and there is a proviso which goes on to say: `.... that the Minister may by order vary, amend, extend or revoke such subsidiary legislation so remaining in force or any part thereof as he thinks fit.' You will notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the operative words there are "may by order". There is a provision to clause 182 for regulations. Under clause 182 - "The Minister may make Regulations...". And under sub-clause (7) of that clause - "All such regulations shall be published [and laid before the Assembly and the Assembly can take a certain line of action if it so desires]." The question I would like to ask the Minister is this, whether an order under clause 2 will be deemed to be a regulation under clause 182. If it is not, then it gives the Minister a whole host of powers to alter the law as he wishes without consulting the Assembly, or the Assembly being in any position to revoke that order made by the Minister. That is the first point. That seems to be a clause in derogation of the rights of the Assembly. Now the terms of clause 9 are not understood. Normally when one service is being transferred to an existing service or two services are being integrated, the posts are held in the same way that they were before integration, and the persons holding the posts would hold those posts. But I seem to get the impression from this proviso that in some cases even the holders of the posts cannot hold the new "integrated" posts - if I may call it that without the approval of the Public Service Commission, unless I have misunderstood the provision. But it looks to me, on the first reading - or even the second and third readings - of this clause, that there may be posts coming into the Government in respect of which the approval of the Public Service Commission would be necessary before they can be confirmed insofar as the present holders are concerned. If my interpretation is correct it seems to be an unusual provision which has not been availed of before in respect of other services which have already been integrated. The other provision which I am not clear about is the transfer to the Government of the assets and liabilities of the City Council and the Rural Board. Apparently, the assets which are to be transferred are at the end of the year 1960. I ask the Minister why at the end of the year 1960, and why not up to the time when integration takes place, because the City Council as such does, in fact, now exist and it must be holding assets now? So why the provision in clause 5 to the effect that it shall only take effect insofar as the assets of the Council as at 1960 are concerned?

Dr Goh, in reply.

Sir, as regards clause 2 and clause 182, the position as I see it is this. In clause 2 (2) , the Minister is empowered to vary, amend, extend or revoke existing subsidiary legislation. I think the Member for Farrer Park agrees that this is a reasonable provision because, where by-laws and regulations have already passed and are now found to be working quite satisfactorily, there is no reason why they should be revoked and not allowed to continue. Now the point he has made in respect of clause 182 is that he thinks in some way or the other the jurisdiction of the Assembly would be restricted in respect of ---

On a point of explanation.

Yes.

Sir, I am not saying that the Minister should not have that power. By all means, let him have that power. All I say is that once he acts under clause 2, then such an order should come within the ambit of clause 182 (7) . That is all I say.

I think the point the Member for Farrer Park is making is worth looking into in Select Committee. If, in fact, the objections to the Bill as it now stands which he has raised cannot be overcome, then I think the Select Committee will certainly look into the matter. Now as regards the proviso to sub-clause (1) of clause 9, I think this is really a requirement which follows on the Singapore Constitution in that certain posts in the Government service can only be filled by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara acting on the advice of the Public Service Commission, and on integration certain posts which were formerly in the City Council are now part of the Government establishment and as such the incumbents must be approved by the Public Service Commission. As regards the date of the transfer of the assets, we have decided on the end of 1960, the reason being that the effective date of integration will be 1st January, 1961. Therefore, it does seem to me that 31st December, 1960, gives the correct date on which assets should be listed as value for the purpose of transfer.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

I beg to move, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Does the Minister not consider that the same Committee appointed to look into the Public Utilities Bill could very well look into this Bill, or does he require a different Committee?

The same.

Then the motion will be that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee to which the Public Utilities Bill has been committed by this Assembly. Committed to the Select Committee to which the Public Utilities Bill has been committed by the Assembly. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee].

3.33 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend the Planning Ordinance, 1959, on account of the integration of the City Council with the Government and is solely concerned with staffing. Members will recall that on the abolition of the Singapore Improvement Trust in February 1960, about 89 employees of the Trust were transferred to the Planning Department in Government and the remainder to the Housing and Development Board. The employees of the Trust who were transferred to the Planning Department were members of the staff engaged in the planning functions of the Trust. Their terms and conditions of service, including their superannuation, were governed by the same rules as applied to the employees of the City Council. It has been the intention that the staff of the Trust transferred to the Planning Department and the employees of the City Council who will be transferred to the Government as a consequence of the integration should enjoy the same terms and conditions of transfer and superannuation. In order to ensure that these former employees of the Trust would enjoy similar superannuation benefits as those applicable to employees of the City Council who are to be transferred to the Government as a result of the integration, it is necessary to commence the Planning Ordinance to provide for identical provisions as those contained in the Local Government Integration Bill. The extension of the benefits of the Government's pension scheme to former Trust employees in the Planning Department will involve the Government in some small expenditure. In a few cases, these persons will find the benefits of the Government's pension scheme greater than those to which they were entitled in their previous employment with the Trust. It is most probable that in these few cases they would choose the benefits of the Government's pension scheme. The exact costs cannot be ascertained until their final retirement. But in all probability there will only be a few cases and it is unlikely that the additional cost would be very large. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to the Select Committee to which the Public Utilities Bill has been committed by the Assembly. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee].

3.37 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Pensions Ordinance, 1956. It provides for pension and other retirement benefits of persons transferred to the service of the Government from the City Council, the Singapore Improvement Trust and the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The superannuation schemes to which they belonged prior to the transfer generally allowed them to continue membership in their respective schemes. They could also count their service before transfer as service reckonable for pension on their eventual retirement. As matters stand, such a person would be eligible on his retirement for benefits under his own superannuation scheme as well as retirement benefits under the Government pension scheme. This is clearly contrary to the principle of superannuation. It is, therefore, necessary for provision to be made to enable employees transferred from the City Council, the Trust and the Tan Tock Seng Hospital to choose to receive benefits either from their own superannuation scheme or those under the Government pension scheme. There is also the aspect of death benefits. The Government's pension scheme, as it stands, requires the payment of at least one year's salary in the form of a death gratuity to the dependants of a deceased officer. As on their transfer to the service of the Government, employees of the City Council, the Trust and the Tan Tock Seng Hospital become Government officers, their dependants would be entitled to a death gratuity or one year's salary should they die in harness. The existing provisions for the payment of a death gratuity do not take into consideration death benefits to which a transferred person may be eligible under his own superannuation scheme. If this situation is allowed to continue, then transferred persons would be better off than Government servants who have only the pension scheme to rely on for benefits. For this reason, provision has been made in the Bill for the quantum of death gratuity payable under the Government's pension scheme to be reduced to the extent of contributions paid to the superannuation scheme to which a transferred person belonged by his previous employer and Government. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to the Select Committee to which the Public Utilities Bill has been committed by the Assembly. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee].

3.40 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Housing and Development Ordinance, 1959, so as to bring about uniformity of provisions relating to superannuation of the staff between that Ordinance and the Public Utilities Bill. The latter contains provisions for the appointment of trustees in respect of monies payable on the death of an employee of the Board out of any superannuation scheme to which he belonged. There is also provision in the Public Utilities Bill for the safeguarding of benefits under the Municipal Provident Fund of employees of the Singapore Improvement Trust who have been transferred to the Housing and Development Board. In moving the Second Reading of the Planning (Amendment) Bill, I explained the necessity for parallel provisions in legislation relating to superannuation and terms and conditions of service of employees of the Trust who have been transferred to the Housing and Development Board and the Planning Department and of the City Council employees who will be transferred to the Government. That explanation holds good here. If I may reiterate, it is that Trust employees were on terms and conditions of service, including superannuation, identical with those of the City Council employees. It will not be equitable, therefore, to provide varying terms and conditions of service and superannuation on their transfer to the Housing and Development Board and the Planning Department. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to the Select Committee to which the Public Utilities Bill has been committed by the Assembly. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee].

3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide between the alternatives of reunification on the basis of (a) the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961 giving Singapore autonomy in education and labour; or (b) a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya. Sir, on the Order Paper appears an amendment in the name of the Member for Cairnhill whereby he seeks to add to the two alternatives (a) and (b) a third alternative, `or (c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories'. In moving this motion, it will assist the debate if I make it clear at the outset that it is the Government's intention to accept the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill, and I shall discuss the three alternatives posed as set out in (a), (b) and (c). This motion we are asking the House to accept will put the issue of merger to the people in a simple and clear-cut manner. Everybody in this House has agreed that threre should be merger and the people will be asked by this motion ---

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker.

Surely.

Mr Speaker, with reference to the desire of the Prime Minister to discuss the amendment to be proposed by the Member for Cairnhill, does that necessarily mean that we will have to follow suit, or can we discuss that amendment when it is made?

It would be for the convenience of the Assembly if that amendment could be discussed together with the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister. But if it is not convenient, then Members are entitled to say their piece when the Member for Cairnhill moves his amendment.

Mr Speaker, when I moved the motion for the guillotine, after consideration of the two motions, it was decided that the three motions, one standing in my name, another two standing in the names of the Member for Anson - item 10* - and the Member for Queenstown - item 11+ - should also be guillotined for 12 midnight on Wednesday. Sir, I would not wish in any way to conscribe the capacity for word formation and practice in elocution by any Member in this Assembly if that would help that person's political career. But I would suggest, not only for the convenience of the *That this Assembly calls upon the Government to make arrangements (a) to ascertain the will of the people of Singapore in respect of the proposed constitutional changes by way of a referendum on the following question only:"Do you accept the proposed closer constitutional relations with the Federation of Malaya as incorporated in Command Paper No.33 of 1961, a copy of which is attached to the Order for this Referendum"; and (b) to name Polling Day as a day four weeks from the date of the Order therefor. +That this House condemns the Government for its dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition's stand on the Merger issue, whereby it seeks to mislead and confuse the people in the forthcoming referendum. House but also for the effectiveness of the debate and the presentation of the arguments, that each Member, if everybody agrees, should speak on all three motions and the amendment proposed by the Member for Cairnhill.

Yes, if that is convenient. I should imagine that it would be convenient at this stage to say that the debate should range over items 10 and 11. That, I take it, is convenient. When we come to the amendment to be moved by the Member for Cairnhill, there is nothing to prevent any Member from ranging over that amendment. But, as I say, I cannot, under the Standing Orders, compel all Members to range over that amendment at this stage. But there is nothing, as I said, to prevent the Prime Minister and any other Member who wishes to do so to range over that amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the procedural point can be settled if, after I close my opening remarks and the question has been put, the Member for Cairnhill will be available immediately to move his amendment.

That is exactly the difficulty. I think Members have before them a notice of an amendment which has been filed by the Member for Queenstown. It is in line 3 of the Prime Minister's motion, to leave out from "their" to the end and to insert --- "wishes on the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide whether they accept or reject the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961". So that the procedure will be that that amendment will have to be disposed of first before we can pass on to the amendment to be moved by the Member for Cairnhill. That is only procedural. But in so far as the debate is concerned, as I have indicated, the debate may range over all the motions and all the amendments.

Sir, I shall continue my opening on the lines that you have indicated to the House. The people will be asked by this motion and the amendment to be moved by the Member for Cairnhill to decide between three alternatives: (a) merger under the White Paper terms; (b) complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states, and (c) enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories. Sir, 33 Members of this House have supported the proposals set out in the heads of agreement in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961. Of the other Members, 13 in the Barisan Sosialis, through their Party Chairman, in September last year asked for complete merger like Penang and Malacca; three in the United People's Party, through their Secretary-General, the Member for Hong Lim, in a radio forum on the 14th of June this year, the proceedings of which are recorded on the tape, asked for merger terms - and I quote - "parallel to Johore"; and one Member, the Workers' Party, through their Chairman, the Member for Anson, in this Assembly on the 23rd of November asked for - and I quote - "complete and unconditional merger" - and again I quote - "on an equal basis with the other States". Sir, only one Member in this House, the Member for Joo Chiat, has not expressed his views on the type of merger we should have. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true that subsequently at a radio forum which was broadcast on the 14th of June this year, the Member for Hong Lim said the Bansan Sosialis - and I quote his words again - "have once made a mistake and that since their mistake, they have asked for automatic conversion of Singa-pore citizens into Federation citizens." It is also true that the Member for Anson, in the same forum on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis ---

No.

--- the proceedings of which are on the tape, I do not know whether he had the authority to speak on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis, but he spoke with such vehemence in the presence of the Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, who remained so silent, overawed by the occasion, that I thought he must have had the authority to speak on his behalf. However, that is a matter for them to clear up. But what he did say, and what was recorded on the tape, is this: "Barisan Sosialis mistakenly used Penang and Malacca", I quote the words in the debate, "mistakenly used Penang and Malacca", and I quote the Member for Anson's exact words, "They have admitted their mistake. They have withdrawn it." Now, Sir, whether ---

What date?

"They have admitted their mistake. They have withdrawn it."

What date?

It is at the, radio forum on 14th of June, at the top of page 10. "They merely used Penang and Malacca because there were no citizens of Penang and Malacca there. They have admitted their mistake. They have withdrawn it." Mr Speaker, Sir, whether or not the Opposition Members made a mistake in asking for complete merger like Penang - or Malacca or Johore or, as the Member for Anson says, "complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other states," the fact remains that there can be no constitutional mistake, because the constitutional terms of the other 11 States are questions of fact which can be determined by a study of the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya, namely, first, the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948, second, the Federation of Malaya (Amendment) Agreement, 1952, third, the Constitution, of the Federation of Malaya, 1957, and fourth, Nine Nationality Laws of the Nine Malay Sultanates. Sir, the terms therefore under which the 11 States were brought together and the laws regulating the acquisition of citizenship by the people of the 11 States can be spelt out from these documents. The Barisan Sosialis have subsequently said that they want automatic conversion of Singapore citizenship into Federation citizenship and there has been support now by the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim. Sir, if the constitutional documents contain either, by precedent or by analogy, provisions to support such a claim, then I say, let a judicial or any fair and impartial tribunal so find it. But if, in fact, the constitutional documents contain no such provisions upon which such a claim can be founded, then, of course, the claim will be rejected. The words in alternative (b) that have been spelt out in the motion - "complete and unconditional merger" and the phrase "as a state on an equal basis with the other states" are those that have been used by the Member for Anson. Sir, he, being the lawyer amongst them, has used words which more legalistically describe what the Barisan Sosialis have ineptly called "complete merger like Penang and Malacca", and which the Member for Hong Lim has described as "complete merger parallel to Johore". He said in Hansard of the 23rd of November, 1961, col. 557, with his eloquent rhetoric on that occasion: `And, Sir, in case there is any suggestion as to when I and My Party....'. Sir, I do not know whether the Government Printer was given the recording on the tape, but obviously the importance of that occasion did not escape him, because he printed "I" and "My" in capitals - "I and My Party" - no doubt after the script had been corrected by the Member for Anson. And it is the importance of this occasion for the Member for Anson. "I and My Party" said he; not small "m" and small "i" but a big "M" and a big "I", Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Order. I do not think the Prime Minister ought to bring the Government Printer into the debate. I do not know whether that was an alteration made by the Member for Anson. He will be able to tell us.

No doubt at the appropriate moment, he will elucidate and give the House the engaging reason why the words are printed in black type. But anyway he said: `... began to believe in merger, here is a dog-eared copy of the very first and the only party platform of the Workers' Party...'. I do not know whether all the others had been lost or are in storage. Undoubtedly he had the authentic copy and brought it to this House ---

We do not change our Party platform like the P.A.P.

True, Sir. They only had one copy left and they brought it to this Chamber. We had the privilege of hearing him quoting: `.... on its formation in December of 1957.' That was before Mr Chang Yuen Tong, whom I had occasion to refer to, left the Party in a hurry. However: `In the very first paragraph and in the very first sentence, it says...'. Pity "it" is not in capitals, Sir. I think it all refers to the same thing: `"The basis and framework of all policy must be recognition of the fact that Singapore is geographically, ethnically, and economically part of Malaya and the only healthy ultimate solution is integration with Malaya on an equal basis with other states.". Sir, it is miraculous that we used that phrase "on an equal basis with other states"...'. Sir, the words in the motion have studiously followed the words of the Member for Anson. Sir, he went on with great eloquence, beginning at the bottom of 561, to say: `Sir, the people of Singapore, I believe, recognise that if we want unity, if we want equal privileges, we must carry heavy responsibilities. We must recognise that there can be no reality of unity, no identification of the Federation and Singapore if we pursue different policies in education and labour. I do honestly believe, Sir, that the P.A.P. errs when it says that the people of Singapore will not accept that the whole of Malaya should be in control of our education and labour policies. I believe that if the issue were put to the people of Singapore, ---' "if the issue" - this is the issue. We agree with him --- `"Do you want unconditional merger complete or do you want the P.A.P. White Paper?" We would have 90 per cent of the people voting for unconditional and complete merger.'

What date is that?

23rd of November, in the year of the Lord, Anno Domino 1961 ---

Domini.

Domini. Sir, I have always had a faulty Latin conjugation. I must thank you for reminding me that I used to neglect my work. But, nevertheless, what I am grateful to the Member for Anson for is having put in legalistic language words which we have now found most appropriate to pose as a second alternative of the three choices to be put before the people. Sir, I would like to make this point, that what we are doing now is exactly what the Member for Anson wanted us to do, to put the issue in those words. We have, of course, I hope with due decorum and a little bit of modesty, left out the P.A.P. from the description of the White Paper as adopted by 33 Members of this Assembly. But if it is the wish of the Opposition that their names should appear as adjectives to the second alternative, I think we on this side of the House are quite willing to allow them to describe the second alternative as sired by them. Since it is a motley crowd, it is difficult to know out of whom which was sired. But, nevertheless, we are quite prepared not to allow this to be an abortion because abortions are horrible things. We will allow them to put their hallmark on the second alternative and, as the Member for Anson said in the third radio forum of the 27th of June, if he were allowed to put it exactly in those words, he would be quite happy ---

Oh, be fair.

Why? Nevertheless, Sir, I will leave it to him to qualify and requalify, but those words are on the tape and can be verified. Mr David Marshall rose ---

On a point of order?

Indeed, Sir. You have on several occasions pulled up, for example, the Member for Nee Soon for misquoting Members of the Assembly in respect of statements allegedly made by them. I say, in this instance, that the Prime Minister is misquoting and consciously misquoting.

If indeed it is an actual misquote, then it is wrong. But if it is just a misrepresentation of the meaning of what the Member for Anson said, then the Member has a chance later on of correcting that misrepresentation. Is it a misquote?

No, Sir, I must regretfully disagree that it is a misquote. The tape is there and it can be checked and verified. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will give me permission, I shall bring the tape into this Assembly. But ---

Order. I understood that the words on the tape have been transcribed on foolscap paper and if that transcription is read, that will suffice.

As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think the force, the vitality and the eloquence is lost in the transcript. However, I accept your ruling. I need only say that I hope you have followed me accurately on the report in Hansard. Nobody could complain that the Hansard, which has no doubt received prior scrutiny by the author, represents his exact expression and intention of meaning. However, I shall leave the Member for Anson in due course with his voluminous tomes to explain away all the erudite statements that he has made.

What?

On the question of economic integration with the Federation and on the issue that is to be put to the people - the two issues: (a) the White Paper which he labels P.A.P. and which we say White Paper; (b) merger, complete and unconditional as a State equal to any of the other States. Sir, there are precedents for putting these alternatives for the choice of the people. I will read out briefly. In the Newfoundland Referendum in 1947, the people were asked to choose: 1. Whether they wanted to remain a colony of Britain; in effect, that was what it meant. 2. To be independent by themselves. 3.To be federated with Canada. The choice of the people was the third - federation with Canada. Again in the referendum held in the Trust Territories of the Cameroons in February last year, supervised by the United Nations, the people were asked whether they wished to be independent: (a) by joining Nigeria; (b) by joining the Republic of the Cameroons. The North chose to join Nigeria, and the South chose to join the Republic of the Cameroons. As I told the House on Friday last, in Uganda, the fate of two lost counties is to be decided by a referendum which will ask the people of the two lost counties to choose between three alternatives: 1. To remain under the rule of the Kingdom of Buganda; 2. To be transferred to the Kingdom of Bunyoro's rule; 3. To remain permanently under the Central Government of the Federation which will include Buganda and Bunyoro. Sir, it was never suggested that the people should choose to remain lost counties. The course we are adopting, therefore, is supported by reason and precedents. 11 States have come together in the Federation of Malaya. By reason and logic we are entitled to as much as what was afforded to the 11 States. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that it is the duty of the Government to see that we are treated as favourably as any of the other States. But I cannot promise to get terms more favourable than those for the 11 States. Alternative (a), which is Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, giving Singapore local autonomy in education and labour, is a variation of the norm of the terms of the 11 States. We believe, Sir, that this is a variation for the better to suit the special circumstances of Singapore, because of Singapore's separate developments since its separation in 1945 from the rest of the Straits Settlements and Malaya, separate developments particularly in policies in labour and education, and also because of the fact that citizenship has already been granted by registration to some 340,000 non-Singapore born persons under laws which were different from those in the Federation. But although we believe that these arrangements in the White Paper are better than complete and unconditional merger as a State in the Federation, nevertheless we shall bow to the will of the people if they choose complete and unconditional merger in preference to a merger which bestows on us or leaves us with large powers of local autonomy, not just in education and labour, but health, welfare and so on as set out in the White Paper. Sir, in the haze of the dust churned up by wilful and malicious propaganda, it might be useful to remind everybody what is the meaning of complete and unconditional merger, and how it compares with the constitutional arrangements in the White Paper which the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist stooges and friends and sympathisers have chosen to describe as a phoney merger. Sir, in a complete merger, even if for the sake of argument we asume that the condition asked for by the Barisan Sosialis of automatic conversion of citizenship were granted and agreed to by all the other 11 States, first, education and labour will have to be controlled by the Central Government, and all our revenue which pays for labour, education, welfare, health services and all the other powers of local autonomy will have to go to the Central Government to defray the cost of these services. On the other hand, the White Paper proposals leave more than 75 per cent of our revenue at the disposal of the Singapore Legislative Assembly.

It is 75 per cent now!

Sir, under complete and unconditional merger, this Assembly will become like any of the other Assemblies in the 11 States. Its powers will be reduced to those of Penang, or Johore, or Pahang, or Perlis; multi-lingualism will cease, and many of the present hon. Members in this House will not be eligible to sit in the Singapore State Assembly. Sir, certain constitutional preferences which the Communists and their stooges have consistently attacked as Malay privileges will have to be observed. For example, the allocation of scholarships, entry into the civil service on a 4 to 1 basis, preference to Malays, where other things are equal in order to help them in business and such things as bus licences, tenders, and so forth-all these provisions regarding preferences will not apply in Singapore under alternative (a), the White Paper Agreement. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill's amendment which will offer the people alternative (c) will allow them to choose terms no less favourable than those for the Borneo territories, if they consider that these terms are more suitable to Singapore than either (a) merger under the White Paper, or (b) complete and unconditional merger.

On a point of clarification, Sir. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

I am obliged. It is rather important, Sir. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether he anticipates that the terms offered to the Bornean territories would be published at the time the referendum is taken?

Sir, I have no desire to anticipate the conference in London which is to take place, as I understand it, at the beginning of next week. I am arguing here on the basis of principle that whatever is offered to the Borneo territories, no less favourable terms should be offered to Singapore. That is the proposal made by the Member for Cairnhill and I accept it unreservedly. And no doubt if the alternative is pursued, all those terms will have to be published. Sir, there is reason and logic in this: since we are all going to be States in one Federation, the terms that bring us together, although they may vary because of our differing circumstances, should nevertheless be substantially equal. What is offered to the Borneo territories may not be suitable for Singapore, but whatever is offered to the Borneo territories must also be offered to Singapore if the people of Singapore prefer these terms to alternative (a) the White Paper, or (b) complete and unconditional merger. We accept this amendment, therefore, that the people be offered a third choice, to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories. Sir, I noticed from yesterday's newspapers that some 19 Opposition Members have written to the United Nations giving their views on the coming merger and the referendum. They have made scurrilous and unfounded allegations. I need hardly say, Sir, that we on this side of the House fear nothing. I say to this House now, and I say it to any other Assembly or any other august tribunal, be it from the United Nations or any of its agencies, that we can prove that these alternatives posed in the referendum can withstand the closest scrutiny and the most stringent test of reason and logic and the realities of the position in Malaya and Malaysia. The first principle of any federation is that all States are dealt with equally and that the norm, or rather, the equivalent of what was given to the 11 States of the Federation should also be available to any new member if the new member desires it. If there is to be any variation, it will be a variation from this norm with something added and something subtracted, the result being more or less the same. We say that the White Paper is that variation of the norm which suits Singapore best. The Borneo territories will have terms worked out which will suit the Borneo territories best. I repeat: if the people of Singapore desire the terms either of the 11 States of the present Federation, or of the three States of the Borneo territories, then they are entitled to them, and the Government will ensure that their wishes are complied with. But to get more than what was given to the 11 present States of the Federation or more than what is to be given to the three Borneo territories is something not within the realms of reality. To put as an alternative choice to the people something which is not possible, as has been suggested by some Members of the Opposition, would be a fraud on the people - offering them on the menu something which we know is not contained in the larder. Any Party in this House, be it the S.P.A. or the Workers' Party of the Member for Anson, is entitled to communicate with the Federation Government and the Prime Minister direct and to try and negotiate for better terms. The Member for Anson has tried and he knows what the realities are. The Member for Cairnhill cannot be unaware of the Tunku's views on the matter. And even the Communist-controlled Barisan Sosialis, through their open front Secretary-General, Mr Lim Ching Siong, in April, a few months ago, sent a letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman by the personal hand of the Assistant Secretary-General. What the letter contains presumably is only known to the Secretary-General and the Tunku. But everybody can guess what this gesture of peace-making was aimed at. However, the very fact that neither the letter nor the response of the Tunku to the letter has ever been made public ---

Even to the Chairman.

--- probably even to the Chairman of the Party, is in itself significant. Unlike the Opposition, the Government's duty is to make practical, realistic arrangements for the the people's future in Malaysia. We are not concerned with our personal or our Party future. That is unimportant. What is important is the future well-being and security of the people of Singapore and of the people of Malaysia. We have done whatever is possible in the White Paper proposals. The Communists know that when the people choose between the three alternatives -

The Question is, "That this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide between the alternatives of reunification on the basis of (a) the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961 giving Singapore autonomy in education and labour; or (b) a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya." As indicated, the debate may range over the amendments, notice of which has been given by the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Cairnhill, and items 10 and 11 on the Order Paper. Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill) rose ---

Does the Member for Cairnhill desire to move his amendment?

No.

If the Member for Cairnhill speaks now to the main Question, he will not be able to move his amendment. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Is it a point of order?

No, Sir, It is just to explain that, in view of what you have said that the amendment of the Member for Queenstown will have to be disposed of first, I will leave it to the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has just given an indication that he is willing to accept three alternatives to be put to the people. I am just wondering, Sir, when it comes to that, whether I can put in a fourth alternative later on. At the present moment, I am only moving the amendment standing in my name. How does that fourth alternative come in? I would like your guidance, Sir.

The difficulty the Member for Queenstown will be facing is this: if he speaks now and moves his amendment, he is speaking to the main Question. Therefore, he will not be able to move another amendment later on. I would suggest that the most convenient way is for somebody else in the Party to move that fourth amendment, if the amendment is to be moved.

I would like to seek your guidance again, Sir, on the motion standing in my name asking for the condemnation of the Government on the malicious falsehoods. Do I have an opportunity to reply to that motion?

I do not know whether the Member wishes to speak on that motion now?

Yes.

If he does, perhaps he could speak on that motion and if it is necessary for him to reply, then I will consider the point at that stage.

Sir, we have just seen the P.A.P. distortionists working in this House. When we interject, they say we are disorderly. When we do not interject and observe the rules of debate, they say we are overawed by the occasion. Even the "I and My Party" of the Member for Anson have been distorted to mean something entirely different. I think the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for the way he has distorted words and meanings. About the mistakes which he talked about, Sir, I shall deal with them as I come to that part of my speech which deals with the motion that condemns the Government for their dishonesty in maliciously distorting the Opposition stand. The Prime Minister also referred in passing to the referendum in Newfoundland. In the referendum in Newfoundland, as we all know, the people were offered three alternatives: (1) to remain as a colony; (2) to become independent; or (3) to be federated with Canada. But compared with the alternatives that are offered to us today, does the Government offer us a chance to be independent?

You want it to be a colony.

Let them put all the alternatives down, Sir. Let them put down all the alternatives which Newfoundland put to the people for a referendum. Then it would be a fair one. Otherwise, how can they compare our referendum to the referendum in Newfoundland? In addition, Sir, may I also remark in passing that Newfoundland recognised the universal principle of a clear majority in the referendum? If you remember, Sir, they had to hold two referenda because in the first referendum there was no clear majority for any of the choices offered to the people. In our present case in Singapore, Sir, we have a dictatorial and dishonest Government that do not even recognise the universal principle of a clear majority in the case of voting. Sir, as I remarked when I first sat on this side of the House, we are all students of politics and we will always be learning, Sir, unlike some people who pose as masters but who, in fact grovel at the feet of dictators to learn how to be dictatorial and to be unjust and dishonest. Sir, the Prime Minister takes great delight in talking of first principles. He talked of first principles in the radio forum on the 26th of June, 1962. And again, he talked of first principles in his speech in this House on the 4th of July when he made a silly attempt to defend and to justify the most abhorrent and distatorial clauses 28 and 29 of the Referendum Bill. The motion, Sir, requests that the people of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories. Sir, on first principles, I say that if you wish to ask the people to express their choice on any matter, then you first consult them before you make a decision on the matter. It is only after there is full consultation that any decision can be reached. But, in the present instance, Sir, the P.A.P. had already made up their minds and had reached agreement with the Federation Government before any information of the matter was placed before the people. The Deputy Prime Minister first informed the leaders of the Opposition on the 26th of August, 1961, of the agreement already reached in principle between the two Prime Ministers on the 23rd August, 1961. You see. Sir, agreement had already been reached in principle when the people of Singapore were informed of the matter. There was no consultation and the P.A.P. White Paper proposals were a fait accompli. Let us trace the events as they were unfolded before us last year. We had an inkling of the sell-out proposals of the P.A.P. while we were still in the P.A.P., and it was because there had been this intra-party difference of opinion and views on the matter and because of non-consultation that there was a split in the P.A.P., with the consequent formation of the Barisan Sosialis. We had clearly then shown to the people that the P.A.P. leaders were imposing an intra-party dictatorship and that they had deviated from their original P.A.P. stand. I dare say that the Member for Bras Basah recently discovered the same errors in the P.A.P. leadership. After we had left the P.A.P. and had formed the Barisan Sosialis, we repeatedly called for a general election in order that the people of Singapore could elect a government more representative of their views on the issue of merger.

On a point of order, Sir. Is this sordid whitewashing of the failure of the Barisan plot relevant to the motion in my name posing the alternatives?

I think the Member for Queenstown is attacking the phrase "on the mode and manner". He has indicated that it should not be there, and that the people should have first been consulted before that phrase came in that motion.

The Prime Minister hates to be reminded that he has made promises to the people and has broken faith with them. That is why he does not like me to repeat all this, Sir. But I think it is good that we should have a record of all the infidelity of the P.A.P. We felt, Sir, that the general election should be held before the P.A.P. Government should commit the fate and the future of Singapore to certain proposals which the P.A.P. leaders had in mind. But the P.A.P., as expected, did not heed our call. If they had been sincere in wanting to consult the people and in asking them to make their choice on the mode and manner of merger, then they should have heeded our call and held a general election. But, no, the P.A.P. leaders were scared. They were afraid they would lose their present posh jobs in air-conditioned rooms, and they did not want to consult the people in a general election. They, therefore, countered the clamour for a general election in order to let the people express their choice and wishes on a merger issue by offering instead to hold a referendum, and the decision was made with the announcement on the radio forum in September 1961. Of course, another good reason for the decision of the P.A.P. to hold a referendum instead of a general election was that the Government need not resign, even if the P.A.P. should lose in the referendum. However, as it became more and more clear that the merger proposals of the P.A.P. were unacceptable to the people, the three Opposition Parties, namely, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party and the Barisan Sosialis, wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister on 6th October, 1961, and jointly asked for a special Assembly sitting in order to discuss the question of merger, but the request of the Opposition Parties was again refused. We asked that the merger proposals be discussed in the Legislative Assembly, but instead the P.A.P. leaders went merrily along ignoring all our pleas for consultation on the fate and future of the people of Singapore. Meanwhile, through pressure of public opinion and through pressure from Opposition Parties asking that the details of the merger proposals be disclosed, there was this "strip-tease" performance of revelation of the merger proposals in dribs and drabs. Thus, Sir, we can see there was no consultation whatsoever of the opinions and views of the Opposition Parties. The P.A.P. had not dared to reveal the details all at once, because the P.A.P. leaders knew that such a revelation would raise an outcry against the Government straightaway. So the people of Singapore did not know of the merger proposals until these proposals were tabled for debate in the House on the 20th of November, 1961. So what is all this humbug about asking the people to express their choice? Where is the choice as freely expressed by the will of the people? Sir, the only genuine expression of choice will be through a general election when the people can elect a Party that puts up the form of merger proposals that best meets their approval. 4.43 p.m.

The P.A.P. did not allow the people this free expression of choice when that free expression of choice was most vital and necessary, that is, before agreement was reached in principle and before the P.A.P. foisted on the people their sell-out fait accompli. The Government's only excuse to justify their perfidious act of not having consulted the people on their own future is that the P.A.P. had the mandate from the people when the P.A.P. were elected to office in 1959. Sir, this is another falsehood which the P.A.P. has kept on repeating time and time again for want of a better line. The P.A.P. leaders never had a merger mandate from the people. The Five-Year Plan was the mandate the P.A.P. received from the people - the "bible" which the Members of the S.P.A. used to produce, whenever they talked of the P.A.P. Plan. But it looks as if all the promises the P.A.P. made in the Five-Year Plan have now been clean forgotten. There was no talk, Sir, of merger in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the first year, neither was there a whisper of merger in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech in the second year. So, merger, Sir, was never a mandate given to the P.A.P. And indeed if the people had decided to vote in a Party on the merger issue, it is my guess that the people would have voted in the S.P.A. whose 1959 election slogan was, "If you want merger, vote S.P.A.," especially as the Tun is on the most friendly terms with the Prime Minister of the Federation, whereas the same could not and cannot be said of the P.A.P. And the S.P.A. - the Party that had the best prospects for merger at that particular time, the Party that had merger as one of its main slogans - suffered a trouncing defeat. This clearly demonstrates that the people of Singapore did not have merger on their minds when they voted the P.A.P. into office in 1959. Now the P.A.P. want to make this utterly ridiculous false claim that they had a merger mandate from the people. In fact, Sir, the only time the P.A.P. made any play on merger was during the Anson by-election and, as everybody knows, their merger proposals were completely rejected by the people in Anson in July 1961. At that time the P.A.P. loudly proclaimed that a vote for the P.A.P. was a vote for the P.A.P. merger, and thinking that the P.A.P. were going to win, the Minister for Culture took great pains to describe the ward in Anson as the most representative ward in the whole of Singapore. All this now Sir, is history.

It was a stab in the back!

The people of Singapore must clearly understand that the P.A.P. never had this mandate on merger. So let us get rid of this hocus-pocus of the P.A.P. On the other hand, Sir, the P.A.P. had the clearest responsibility - as was promised in Anson and subsequently both by the Deputy Prime Minister - and by the Prime Minister - to put forward their merger proposals to the people for acceptance or rejection. There is no necessity, Sir, to pose alternatives to the people. Indeed, in any referendum, Sir, only one single question should be posed to the people and that question should only require a simple answer of yes or no. As I explained during the debate on the Referendum Bill, the correct translation of "referendum" should be chyuen min fu chyueh, that is, the people are asked to endorse the Bill or motion that had been passed in the Legislative Assembly. In our case, Sir, the merger proposals of the P.A.P., as embodied in Command Paper No. 33 of 1961, have been passed in the Assembly and these proposals should now be posed to the people for their acceptance or rejection. Let me now remind the Prime Minister and the other P.A.P. Ministers of the numerous promises they have made to the people of Singapore - promises which they have now forgotten, but which will bear testimony to the perfidy of the Prime Minister and the P.A.P. for years and years to come. On the 11th of July. 1961, at a mass rally in Anson, the Prime Minister said, "Merger must be decided by the people, not Ministers." Not Ministers, Sir, "Merger is an important question. If agreement is reached with the Federation today," he said, "and the people reject it tomorrow, then that will not do." You note the word "reject", Sir. To reject means to reject one set of proposals, and it does not mean compelling a person to chose another alternative. Then, on the 13th of July, the Prime Minister said the same thing. He said that the people will decide whether or not we want merger, not by a few of us or by a political Party. But see what has happened today. The P.A.P., in the person of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, decided on merger with the connivance of the other Ministers - not the people - only the P.A.P. decided on merger. And now the people are asked to choose on the mode and manner of this merger which the P.A.P. have foisted on the people. Now these are all solemn words, and the Minister for Finance has always said that the Prime Minister weighs his words very carefully. According to the Minister for Health and Law, there is perfect co-ordination between the Prime Minister's brain and tongue. Has the Prime Minister then forgotten these solemn words uttered on a solemn occasion, as promised to the people? Sir, I can quote you umpteen examples of the Prime Minister making promises of placing before the people the proposals for their approval or rejection, but I will spare you the ache of listening to a catalogue of broken promises by Ministers elected by the people and who had promised to work for the interests of the people. Even on Teachers' Day, Sir, in August 1961, the Prime Minister had told a large gathering of teachers in the Happy World Stadium that merger terms and conditions would be presented to the people for approval. You will note, Sir, that the Prime Minister never said anything about mode and manner. There was no talk about mode and manner of merger, Sir. There was only one type of merger which the P.A.P. had in mind - the merger proposals of the P.A.P. which are embodied in Command Paper No. 33 of 1961. All along, he said-and at times that was all he said - that the merger proposals would be put before the people for approval or rejection with a simple yes or no. That is what the people understood of his words - "The people will decide." But see what has happened, Sir? See the way the Prime Minister talks today. He has forgotten the original promise of placing before the people the merger proposals he was negotiating supposedly on behalf of the people of Singapore. Then, may I, for the record, remind the House also of what the Deputy Prime Minister said in a letter to Opposition Party leaders on the 6th of September, 1961? He said, "When the deliberations of the working party are completed and agreement is reached, they will also be published. The people can then either accept or reject them." Sir, these are very solemn words - all promises made in black and white. Have they such a short memory?

They have no memory! Dr Lee Siew Choh: I agree with the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, that they have no memory. They will only remember when they once again meet the people for their verdict on them. Then, again, on the 14th of October, 1961, the Prime Minister in a letter to Opposition leaders said: `It is the intention of Government when all the details have been worked out to publish a Paper and table it in the Legislative Assembly for debate. Then the people can accept or reject them.' Note the words, Sir, "accept or reject them". All these are solemn promises, promises made to the people that the P.A.P. would allow them an opportunity to accept or reject the P.A.P. merger proposals as we know them today. And all this, of course, can only be done in a one-question referendum. There was never any talk, Sir, of alternatives to be put before the people. And in all the promises made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, the undertaking was that the merger proposals would be posed to the people for a clear answer of yes or no, accept or reject, approve or disapprove, in a one-question referendum. All these are solemn promises made and are on record, and therefore it is only right and proper that only one question on the White Paper Command No. 33 of 1961 be now posed to the people for the simple answer of yes or no. Indeed it would be a true chyuen min fu chyueh, because the White Paper Command No. 33 has already been passed by the Legislative Assembly and this White Paper must now be taken to the people for their approval or rejection. Hence my amendment, Sir. Let us hope the Prime Minister will really and truthfully - I use his own words -" bow to the will of the people". Let us hope that the Prime Minister will really bow to the will of the people by posing --- 5.00 p.m.

Will the Member take a long time to finish?

I am about to finish, Sir --- just a couple of sentences. I said, let us hope that the Prime Minister this time will really and truthfully bow to the will of the people by posing their White Paper to them for rejection or approval. I will continue afterwards, Sir.

Has the Member finished his speech?

No.

I think it is convenient to suspend for tea. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m.until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at rising I was speaking on why it was necessary to pose the White Paper to the people and to ask them for their approval or rejection. Accordingly, Sir, I want to move the amendment which stands in my name. But now let us see what alternative is put up by the P.A.P. for the so-called choice of the people. A complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis with the other 11 States. Sir, so far as we are concerned, merger is the political integration of Singapore and the Federation with a common electoral register and a central administration and legislature, i.e. with all citizens sharing a common citizenship and with Singapore having proportional representation in the Central Parliament. The word "unconditional" can mean many things, Sir, but if "conditional" means that we get automatic Federal citizenship and proportionate representation, then, of course, that word will not be objectionable. Otherwise, that word can only be understood by the P.A.P. and it will allow the P.A.P. too much room for their dishonest manoeuvres. The Prime Minister has said that this second alternative which he offers as a so-called choice to the people is what we in the Barisan Sosialis have asked for. I do not know what this alternative really means in spite of the limited explanation given by the Prime Minster. There is no White Paper on this second alternative and we are in no position to know the true significance of this alternative with no White Paper on it. But it is significant, Sir, that there is no longer any mention in the question posed of the Penang type merger. Probably this is a new switch of P.A.P. falsehoods and propaganda. They have come to realise that the people cannot be further deceived by their malicious falsehoods and their distortion of the Opposition's stand on merger. Sir, I will leave the third alternative which will be proposed by the Member for Cairnhill and will hear what he has to say before we give our views on it. But I have a motion standing in my name asking that this House condemn the Government for its dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition's stand on the merger issue, whereby it seeks to mislead and confuse the people in the forthcoming referendum. As you have indicated. I will now speak on this aspect of the debate. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take you back to the recent past when the Government indicated, through radio talks and speeches by Mr Jek Yuen Thong, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister himself and the Minister for Finance, that in the forthcoming referendum on merger two questions would be posed to the people, namely, the Government's merger proposals as embodied in White Paper Command 33 of 1961, and (2) the so-called Penang/Malacca type merger which the P.A.P. repeatedly said would automatically disfranchise half our citizens in Singapore. The P.A.P., through their propaganda machine, Radio P.A.P., Rediffusion and the partially-controlled Press had been drumming into the people of Singapore day in and day out that the Opposition Parties have been advocating this so-called Penang/Malacca type merget. The P.A.P. have all along been saying, i.e. until very recently, that the reason why they offer this so-called Penang/ Malacca type merger as an alternative in the forthcoming referendum is that they wish to allow the people a chance to choose between what the Government advocate and what the Opposition Parties advocate. Under this pretext of giving our people a chance to choose, the Government have been propagating the malicious falsehoods of this so-called Penang type merger, a merger which the P.A.P. allege is the merger stand of the Opposition Parties. Now the Prime Minister says it is the same as the stand of the U.P.P. which asks for, according to the P.A.P., a Johore type merger, and the stand of the Workers' Party, according to the P.A.P. an unconditional complete merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to say from the outset that this Penang/Malacca type merger is nothing but a concoction and a fabrication of the P.A.P.'s genius for distortion and dishonesty. No one has advocated a merger arrangement whereby half the citizens of Singapore are going to be automatically disfranchised. We have publicly called the P.A.P. liars for telling the people that the Opposition Parties want a merger that is going to disfranchise half of our citizens, and I charge them again in this House for their blatant dishonesty and malicious distortion of the stand of the Opposition Parties on the merger issue. I charge the P.A.P. Government for having deliberately told our people the naked lie that this so-called Penang type merger of P.A.P. concoction and fabrication is what the Opposition Parties want. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis have repeatedly stressed that what we want as a basis for genuine merger is (1) automatic Federal citizenship for all citizens of Singapore, and (2) proportional representation in the Federal Parliament. Even as early as the 28th of August, 1961, i.e., even before my Party had its inaugural meeting, we had made a major policy statement on the merger issue. Let me quote just a short paragraph, Sir, from that statement: `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, i.e., with Singapore as the twelfth State of the Federation and Singapore citizens automatically becoming Malayan citizens with proportional representation in the Federal Parliament like any of the present 11 States constituting the Federation of Malaya.'

The 27th.

The 28th of August, or the 27th may be. Since that statement was made, Sir, we have consistently stressed that merger must mean automatic Federal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens together with proportional representation. During the inaugural meeting of the Barisan Sosialis held on 17th September, 1961, this point was again stressed. The Secretary-General of my Party, Mr Lim Ching Siong, said, "What does full and complete merger mean? It simply means - the entry of Singapore into the Federation of Malaya as one of its constituent States like Penang and Malacca with all its citizens automatically becoming citizens of the Federation and having all the rights, privileges and obligations like any of the other citizens of the Federation. Singapore will thus become an integral and separate part of the Federation of Malaya having proportional representation in the Federal Parliament like the other States and sharing a common political life and destiny." When this merger issue was finally brought to this House for debate in November last year, you will remember, Sir, that we moved an amendment to the motion by the Minister for Labour in which we asked for a genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day. You will remember, Sir, that during the debate that followed, our stand on merger as embodied in our amendment had the full support of the Workers' Party and the United People's Party. Our amendment, however, was opposed by the Government and the S.P.A. Alliance. Is it not utter dishonesty for the P.A.P. Government now to tell our people that the Opposition Parties, especially the Barisan Sosialis, want a merger which will disfranchise half our citizens - these are printed words solemnly said in this Assembly and recorded for posterity. Is this not clear evidence that it is the P.A.P. who are against giving citizenship rights to our people? Not so very long ago, Sir, the Prime Minister in a forum in the University of Singapore said that the citizens of Singapore who were not local born were worth only one dollar - just two packets of cigarettes. That is the Prime Minister's valuation of the non-local born Singapore citizens. You can imagine why the Government refused to accept our amendment! The Prime Minister never gave a thought to the Singapore citizens who were not local born, and the way he put a one dollar price on our non-local born Singapore citizens is a clear indication of the way our Singapore Prime Minister views our Singapore non-local born citizens. But first let us look into this so-called basis on which the P.A.P. have distorted the Opposition stand on merger. This whole controversy of the Penang/Malacca type merger arose when we quoted Penang and Malacca as examples of equal constituent states in our statements on merger. Let me quote to you again, Sir, the relevant policy statement of the Barisan Sosialis made on 28th August, 1961, page 2, under the heading, "Our Stand on Merger." It reads: `The way ahead for real reunification for 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 constituent State like Penang or Malacca [those fateful words] and (b) as an autonomous unit within a confederation, with the Borneo territories coming in when possible.' That was the statement which has given rise to so much talk about this Penang type merger. On the same page of this policy statement in the following paragraph, Sir, we elaborate on what we mean by full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent state like Penang and Malacca. Let me quote our statement in its proper context so that the people can more clearly see how the P.A.P. have deliberately quoted our statement out of context and how they have dishonestly and maliciously distorted our stand to mean something entirely different. Let me quote, Sir, the paragraph that is the meat of our stand on merger: `We declare that if the representatives 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 a complete merger forthwith, that is, with Singapore as the twelfth state of the Federation, 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.' Sir, you will notice that we have specifically stated in this statement what we mean by full and complete merger with Singapore becoming a constituent state like Penang or Malacca. We have specifically emphasised that it must mean automatic citizenship rights for all the Singapore citizens and the right of proportional representation in the Federal Parliament like any of the present eleven states constituting the Federation of Malaya. Nowhere in this or any other statement made by my Party - or any other Opposition Party for that matter - has this P.A.P. fabricated Penang/Malacca type merger been advocated. I challenge the P.A.P. to produce any evidence to say that we the Barisan Sosialis or any of the other Opposition Parties have advocated a merger which will disfranchise half our citizens in Singapore. If they cannot produce this evidence, then I say they stand exposed as malicious liars and dishonest distortionists. Sir, when we cited Penang and Malacca as examples of equal constituent states, it was clear and obvious to anyone who has no evil, dishonest and machiavellian intentions that we mentioned Penang and Malacca as states - nothing else. We mentioned Malacca and Penang, because Singapore has more things in common with these two states than with the other states of the Federation. Singapore, Penang and Malacca were formerly member states of the Straits Settlements, and, unlike the other nine states of the Federation, they in common do not have a Malay sultanate. It is obvious that if Singapore were to merge with the Federation as an equal constituent state, we would have in Singapore a Governor not unlike the present Governors of Penang and Malacca instead of having a Malay sultan like the other states in the Federation. That is what we mean and that is what everybody with no evil and malicious intentions understands us to mean. That is, everybody, except the dishonest P.A.P. distortionists, except the warped and twisted minds of the P.A.P. genius for distortion and dishonesty.

Some more?

Let me trace the events as they unfolded in Singapore. You will remember how the P.A.P. cried that it was impossible - now that the Minister for Finance is here - for Singapore to become a constituent state and at the same time having all our citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens with the right of proportional representation. In September 1961, the Minister for Finance in a radio forum pretended to be a constitutional expert.

Come, come!

And he told the people of Singapore a deliberate falsehood that under the Federal Constitution it was constitutionally impossible for all our Singapore citizens to automatically become Federal citizens on merger. I have completely exposed this falsehood in the merger debate and the Government could not even give a single answer.

Rubbish!

Article 22 of the Federal Constitution tells us that the Federal Government have full powers to decide on the terms of citizenship for the people of a new territory joining the Federation.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way? Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Can the Member for Queenstown tell us whether we can get full automatic conversion under Article 22 of the Constitution? Is that his interpretation of Article 22?

Of course, of course.

On that matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I can explain ---

Order. The Minister for Finance has asked a question and I ask the Member for Anson not to interject. Let us have the reply from the Member for Queenstown.

The Minister for Finance is very impatient. I will come to it. Just let him be more patient.

Nobody is impatient.

Now, listen, boy!

Order. The Speaker has been called all kinds of names. I do not think he has ever been called "boy" in this Assembly. Let us remember this is a serious debate and I ask the Member for Queenstown to be serious when addressing the Chair.

I have never been more serious, Sir.

You are very comical.

Therefore, the question of citizenship on merger is essentially a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned. Let the Minister for Finance learn this fact, and learn this fact fully. There is no such thing as automatic disfranchisement except when agreed upon by the two parties concerned.

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

I hope the Member for Queenstown will come to the point quickly. Now, his Secretary-General has written a letter to the Tunku ---

Order. If the Minister for Finance rises on a point of elucidation, he must be on the point which has been made by the Member for Queenstown. He must not go to any other point.

Sir, the Minister for Finance is obviously finding it difficult. He and all the P.A.P. Ministers were so crestfallen when we exposed their deceit in the debate in November ---

You were exposed!

The Minister for Finance just walks into this Chamber and then starts interjecting. I would suggest there should be as little interjection as possible.

So lost for argument were they in November 1961 that they had to blackout completely all our arguments on citizenship. Radio Singapore - Radio P.A.P. - had one line on what we said about citizenship, that is all. If they were honest, they would allow the people to read and to know what we said in that important debate. But they realised that they were all wrong and the only way for the P.A.P. at that time was to shut out what we said from the gaze of the public. Sir, as I said, this falsehood of theirs has been exposed, but they still persisted in this falsehood until even the Prime Minister of the Federation could not stand it any longer. He openly stated that it was possible for all Singapore citizens to automatically become Federal citizens. I am sure the Minister for Finance would not dare counter this. He has been grovelling at the feet

On a point of information.

Does the Member for Queenstown give way? No, he does not give way.

One need not have to be a lawyer to understand Article 22 of the Federal Constitution. Anyone with average common sense can see that Article 22 of the Federal Constitution gives the Federal Parliament complete discretionary powers to decide on the terms and conditions of citizenship for the people of a new State to be admitted into the Federation. There is no such thing, as I have said, as automatic disfranchisement except by way of a Bill to this effect passed in accordance with Article 22 of the Federal Constitution. I have no intention, Sir, of repeating the arguments on citizenship, for this has already been adequately dealt with during the debate on the merger issue last year. But, Sir, I have to bring out certain relevant parts again in order to refute and expose the lies, the falsehoods and distortions of the P.A.P. Government. Falsehoods and ---

Order. I have been watching the use of this word "lies", and I think in this particular context now it is completely unparliamentary, because it has reference to the Government, and Government means the Ministers who take their seats in this Chamber. Therefore, I ask the Member for Queenstown to withdraw that word and, to be on the safe side, not to use it.

I withdraw the word "lies", Sir. Falsehoods then and distortions which they have persistently repeated over Radio P.A.P. and Rediffusion ever since the merger debate last year. Falsehoods and distortions which they hope some people might believe if they were repeated long and loud enough. Sir, there may be some people who choose to believe that we in the Barisan Sosialis made a mistake in citing Penang and Malacca as examples of equal constituent States. The Prime Minister in his opening speech said that the Member for Hong Lim said, "The Barisan Sosialis have once made a mistake." The Prime Minister also mentioned that the Member for Anson said, "They have admitted their mistake. They have withdrawn it." Sir, such comments, as far as we are concerned, may only go to add confusion to the P.A.P.'s distortion by saying that we in the Barisan Sosialis did not understand what we were saying when we mentioned Penang and Malacca as examples of equal constituent States. I must say here, Sir, that we are not responsible for anyone who chooses to believe that we made a mistake. As it is, the P.A.P.'s distortionists have sufficiently distorted and twisted our statements into something entirely beyond recognition. Therefore, let not other people wittingly or unwittingly add on to the confusion. Sir, we did not make a mistake in our citing Penang and Malacca as examples of constituent States. If there was any mistake, it was that we completely underestimated the evil genius and the capacity of the P.A.P. for malicious distortion and dishonesty. Sir, as can be seen from the radio forum held on the 12th of June, 1962, it is clear that had we mentioned any other State of the Federation as an example of an equal constituent State, we would still not have escaped the P.A.P.'s evil genius for distortion and dishonesty. You will remember, Sir, Johore was mentioned, and since then the P.A.P. have seized the opportunity to say that the Member for Hong Lim advocated merger like Johore, in which case, even more citizens would be disfranchised. Thus, there is now this so-called Johore type of merger which the P.A.P.'s evil genius makes out to be worse than the Penang type of merger. I can only say there is no limit to the depths to which the evil genius of the P.A.P.'s capacity for dishonesty and distortion can sink. Sir, the Member for Anson pointed out the danger of carrying an analogy too far. He gave a very picturesque example. He said, if we say a girl is beautiful like a flower, it does not mean the girl thrives on manure. In the radio forum on the 27th of June, 1962, I quoted another example. I said if a daughter is asked to grow up like father, it does not mean that the daughter, when she grows up, is going to be changed into a man. I can give you many similar examples, Sir, like the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister. If I say that the Prime Minister drinks like a fish, I am sure he is not really a fish and the Minister for Finance is not a fish. If I say the Member for Anson smokes like a chimney, I am sure he is not a chimney. Similarly, I can say that the Minister for Home Affairs is like a woman. He has been talking like a woman, he has been crying like a woman, acting like a woman, eating like a woman, but he is not a woman, and evidence can be deduced...

On a point of order, Sir. Are these personal references permissible?

They are not permissible if they become offensive. I take it the Minister for Home Affairs is taking it as a joke.

They were never meant to be offensive, Sir, I just wanted lo show the absurdity of their carrying an analogy to well beyond its logical context. It is clear, Sir, that the whole purpose of the P.A.P. is to try and frighten the people of Singapore into believing that any type of merger, other than the type the P.A.P. want to give us and are prepared to rig a referendum to shove down our throats, brings with it automatic disfranchisement of a good section of Singapore's citizens - a malicious falsehood which must be thoroughly exposed. We have pointed out before, and we wish to emphasize here again, that if there should be merger, then all the people who are now citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya on merger, for merger is after all a merger of the peoples of the two territories and not just the joining together of two pieces of territories. To everyone with common sense, this is the only rational, sensible and fair way of treating this whole question of merger. If the Federation Government is not prepared to accept all the citizens of Singapore as Federal citizens in a united Malaya on merger, then it only means that the Federation is not prepared for merger with Singapore now. Our stand on this merger issue is, and has always been, that both Governments should agree that all persons who are already citizens of Singapore immediately before merger day will by operation of law become Federal citizens. Such an arrangement, as I have already indicated, could be given legal effect in pursuance of Article 22 of the Federal Constitution. The Tunku has said automatic citizenship is possible. The only unfortunate part of this disgraceful sell-out is that our Singapore Prime Minister went to negotiate with the Federation not with the strength and support of the people of Singapore, but on bended knees. I do not want to go much further into it, Sir, but you will remember there was a party split in July 1961 and immediately after that the P.A.P. leadership was left with an empty shell. The Party was shaken to its very foundations and this was openly admitted by the Minister for Finance, and recently again by the Prime Minister. That is why we could not get better terms than what we are getting today. That is why the P.A.P. cannot offer anything better than their so-called merger proposals. Let me now expose why the P.A.P. have wanted to put in this so-called Penang type merger, why they invented this Penang type merger. There are two good reasons for the P.A.P. First, the P.A.P. want an excuse to justify posing two questions to the people in the referendum. The Barisan Sosialis is the largest Opposition party and has the support of the workers and the vast majority of the people in Singapore.

It is doubtful.

All that the Member for Farrer Park need do is to go along to one of our rallies and he will find that he cannot even squeeze himself through. If the second alternative, according to the P.A.P. thinking, is to be put to the people, it is obvious that the alternative must be on the merger stand of the Barisan Sosialis, that is, full genuine merger, but the snag is this, the Barisan Sosialis stand of full and complete merger with complete equality in common citizenship and proportional representation would have the support of the people, and, under those circumstances, the P.A.P.'s proposals would still be rejected. The only way out for the P.A.P. is to distort the Barisan Sosialis stand into something that will mean the losing of citizenship for half the citizens of Singapore, and they pick on these two words, "Penang" and "Malacca", and have been using them all along, to distort our stand. Then, according to P.A.P. way of thinking, it would not be acceptable to the people and then only would it be safe for the P.A.P. to pose it as an alternative to the people. So now the P.A.P. claim justification for putting two questions to the electorate in the referendum. And so they now talk of "mode and manner of merger". By this the P.A.P. hope that there would be less objection to their non-democracy and unfairness in the operation of the referendum. Thus the P.A.P. hope to find an excuse for not posing to the people one simple question that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". The second reason is one of malicious intent and has more sting and venom in it, The P.A.P. object is to identify the Barisan Sosialis with the unacceptable fictitious Penang type merger. As you know, Sir, from the P.A.P. standpoint, the only opposition to them is the Barisan Sosialis. All their policies and actions have been directed at the Barisan Sosialis. You will remember, Sir, they had to admit that certain provisions in the Referendum Bill were directed at the Barisan Sosialis. We asked for meetings, we asked for rallies, we asked for conventions, anything that the Barisan Sosialis asked for, it was always a categorical "no". It is because they fear us that they have from the first day tried to isolate the Barisan Sosialis by this smear of Communism and pro-Communism. Sir, they think that a lie told often enough would be mistaken for the truth and, therefore, the P.A.P. propaganda machine has spared no efforts in trying to drum this point into the minds of the people. Day in and day out Radio P.A.P. and Rediffusion have been going full blast that the Penang type merger is what the Barisan Sosialis ask for. All their statements and speeches, inside and outside the Assembly, keep blurting out these falsehoods, this fiction, this fabrication of the P.A.P. Such is the devilish Penang type merger plot of the P.A.P. It serves the P.A.P. in allowing them the chance to rig the referendum with two unacceptable questions on two unacceptable types of merger. It serves the P.A.P. by disseminating the falsehood that the Barisan Sosialis want merger that will cause half the Singapore citizens to lose their citizenship. It is not an alternative offer for the people of Singapore. It is a plot cunningly spun out of the evil genius of distortion. It is the fiction of people so intoxicated and corrupted with power that they have completely lost all sense of decency and fair play.

Hear, hear!

It is a plot to trap and ensnare voters into supporting the P.A.P. merger proposals. It is a plot to compel the voter to put in uncertain and blank ballot papers so that these blank and uncertain ballot papers could be deemed to support the P.A.P. You see, Sir, that is the intention of the P.A.P.'s dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition's stand, and especially the Barisan Sosialis' stand on the merger issue. No honest government would distort the stand of the Opposition on any issue, least of all on an issue that affects the future of all the people in the country. That the P.A.P. have dishonestly and maliciously distorted our stand on merger has been proved to the hilt. Let the House condemn the P.A.P. for such dishonesty. Now that the Referendum Bill has been passed and now that we have the questions to be posed to the people clearly indicated, let us see what happens when the voter is faced with unacceptable alternatives. We have moved the amendment that the referendum should be held on one question, and that one question should be on the White Paper, Command Paper No. 33 of 1961. If the Government refuse to accept our amendment to have only one question to be posed to the people in the referendum, if the Government refuse to let the Opposition put in acceptable alternatives - I must emphasise, Sir, acceptable alternatives - as will be moved by my Party at the appropriate time, then the people will be left with no choice whatsoever and the voters will be forced to express their protest in only one possible way, namely, by throwing in blank and uncertain votes, votes which are protest votes, votes which indicate disgust at the Government for the way they have handled the whole referendum, votes which indicate protest at the dishonesty and dictatorship of the Government in the way they are posing the questions to the people. When the people put in these blank votes, Sir, they will be putting in these blank votes in protest, (1) against the sham referendum which the Government want to hold; (2) against the White Paper of the P.A.P., and (3) as a demonstration of no confidence in the Government. That will be the meaning of the blank votes if the people are going to be faced with no acceptable alternatives in the questions that are posed in the referendum. And if the Government insist on stealing those blank votes and converting them into votes for the P.A.P., then let us solemnly warn the Government that they must bear full responsibility for all the consequences of their unconstitutional and dishonest referendum. Sir, I beg to move, In line 3, to leave out from "their" to the end and insert --- "wishes on the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide whether they accept or reject the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961".

The original Question was, "That this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide between the alternatives of reunification on the basis of (a) the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961 giving Singapore autonomy in education and labour: or (b) a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya.". Since which an amendment has been moved, In line 3, to leave out from "their" to the end and there to insert --- "wishes on the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide whether they accept or reject the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, like a nightmare worm being pulled out from the sands, there seems to be no end of this Government's contempt for our people. They have expended extraordinary, tremendous energy in the past year for distortion and falsification to mislead our people, utilising all the paraphernalia of the State and some very shady tactics with reference to the Press. The tragedy is twofold, Mr Speaker, and I will deal with both of them, both major. One, that the people of Singapore have been made conscious that even under a democracy there can be contempt for them, for the Government they elected. And in this context I ask you to permit me, Sir, because it is pertinent, to quote from a document on the Pakistan Constitution published by the Bureau of National Reconstruction of Pakistan and issued by the Government of Pakistan. I read from page eleven: `Finally the system [they are talking of the parliamentary system] presupposes that holders of power submit themselves to a code of honour. This unwritten code is embodied in precedents and usages usually called the Conventions of the Constitution. Conventions are not laws and can be disregarded when they are no longer in conformity with changed needs. Although not legally enforceable, their force is nevertheless almost as binding as laws enacted by Parliament. They give substance to the principle of sovereignty of the people. Politicians are bound to observe them even if it brings them loss of office.' Sir, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has again raised the question about alternatives, may I quote from page 27 of the same document about the Pakistan Constitution? A very short paragraph: `In case the President does not agree with the legislature he has been empowered to hold a referendum on the question by referring it to the basic democracies who form the Electoral College of Pakistan. In such an eventuality the point under dispute would have to be reduced to a form in which it can be answered by a simple yes or no. Sir, I table this document. An even more tragic aspect - one can hardly think of something more tragic than the strangulation of democracy we are seeing enacted under our very own eyes - is the fact that if this Government had expended one-quarter of this energy in seeking to improve the citizenship provisions, in seeking to impress the Federation Government that it is essential for the stability of Malaysia as a whole that the White Paper proposals should be improved in that regard. I am convinced, Sir, that today, instead of viewing this Government with the horror which our people are wont to, we may well have been joining them in a common and honest effort to bring about that integration which we all seek for our welfare as well as for the welfare of the Federation and the Borneo territories. I say to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether it is today, whether it is this year or whether it is in two years' time, those citizenship proposals must be and will be improved, and radically improved, if we are to have a united and happy nation. The Federation has shown considerable capacity for maturity in the past few years, considerable capacity for understanding the political realities, and I say I cannot believe that if they were to be faced squarely with the issue - you cannot have Singapore and you cannot have a stable Malaysia unless you have a common citizenship - they would recognise it and they would grant us that citizenship. That is the major tragedy of this horrible circus mounted with ability - Machiavellian ability - and with unbounded energy by this terrible group - the tragedy that they could have utilised that force and that ability to better ends, Sir. Instead today we embark on this rear-guard action for further distortions and further employment of the technique of using this Assembly as a smokescreen to cover up P.A.P. perfidy and to mislead the people. You might have wondered why I rose on a point of clarification when the Prime Minister misquoted me - I shall prove to you in a moment how he has misquoted me. The point is this, Sir. His speech gets, and I am not complaining, and it should get, not only P.A.P. Radio publicity but publicity from all the Press. Our corrections are blacked out, but complete. I say in the context of this rearguard action for decency and democracy, in which we know we - are fighting a losing battle - a battle that was lost at 10.25 p.m. last Friday - I ask you to recognise the lustful jubilant note of the Prime Minister as reported by the Press, when the next morning in the Federation he said, "The tragedy of Singapore is the one man one vote system." So the tragedy of Singapore is the one man one vote system - a system which, when as an Opposition leader, he supported with all his heart; a system that he stood up for in the hustings; a system for which I thought he, in common with us, sought to gain the hearts of our people; a system better than which I know of none evolved by the human mind for the healthy development of human society. But now that he has reached the paranoiac height of power, he says - and I wonder whether this does not stick in the gullet of the many honest Back-benches, Sir, who stood on the hustings with him and sought to plead for an understanding of the democratic process, how do they view that statement made on Saturday - "The tragedy of Singapore is the one man one vote system." He does not believe in the democratic system now that he is in power. The motion the Prime Minister has moved this afternoon, Sir, allegedly seeks to place two alternatives before the people. One is perfectly honest and acceptable to very many people. With all respect to the Barisan Sosialis, with whose fight I find myself in complete agreement in major aspects with reference both to the referendum and to the merger issue in seeking for citizenship, I say I do not agree with them when they say that there are not many honest people who believe the White Paper proposals and genuinely believe that the White Paper proposals are good. Such people do exist, and exist in large numbers. It may well be ... I am not sure, Sir, I am frankly, as I, have said before, in doubt. I would not take a bet either way - not that I am a betting man. But, Sir, it is an honest proposal in that it has been spelt out - this proposal of closer relations with the Federation, and I am happy to see that the word "merger" is not there used. It has been spelt out in the White Paper in its main headings, and though I would have preferred to see the draft Constitution being made the basis for the referendum as being the proper constitutional approach, I would not use that minor criticism to quibble at this juncture. I say proposal (a) is right to be put to the people. It has been discussed. It has been spelt out. There is a document clarifying what it means. But what I do quarrel with is that in the context of refusing our people the right to say `yes' or `no' and compelling them, as the P.A.P. seek to compel them, to make a choice of one of two or three alternatives, they introduce as a second alternative something about which the meaning is in controversy, something which has not been spelt out. Sir, I should like to leave the issue of the third alternative until the Member for Cairnhill has dealt with it, because I do not know whether he has in mind that the terms offered to the Bornean territories will be published before the referendum, in which case it would be quite right and proper to put that as an alternative, or whether on the basis of what the Malays called `letak buta', we are supposed to buy a pig in a poke in respect of unpublished terms. Sir, the Prime Minister has told us that the meaning of proposal (b) can be clarified by taking jurist views. But what are the jurists' views? Has he taken any jurist views? You remember, Sir, I put the question a few days ago and I have been told, "Oh, yes, we consulted our State Advocate-General." Right, but not even his views have been published as to what proposal (b) means when spelt out legally. We know what it is in lay language, Sir, but when you put it in this form for the people, I think they are entitled to know what it is supposed to mean. I ask you to notice, Sir, although it is alleged that the Opposition has used this phraseology, that not a single Member of the Opposition has at any time used the phrase which is sought to make the framework - this is it - "in accordance with the Constitutional Documents of the Federation of Malaya". Not one Member of the Opposition has ever used that phrase as being the framework of equality of status of Singapore with the other territories which they now seek to slip in with sneering remarks about how we will dodge what we have asked for. I shall come slowly, if I may, and yet I will not take too long, to what we stood for. Because I ask you to notice this. This new element he introduces: "in accordance with the Constitutional Documents of the Federation" is an extremely vague element. Mr Speaker, what are the Constitutional Documents? Mr Speaker, Sir, are you aware, as you must be, have you forgotten? - may I refresh your memory that in 1962, in this year, Sir, there was an amendment of the Federation Constitution which affected citizenship rights to which many of the people seemed to take strong exception? Is it a Constitutional Document or is it not a Constitutional Document - an amendment of the Federation Constitution? Sir, the document is known as "The Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1962". That Constitutional Act radically changes the citizenship terms under which the 11 States federated together when they first formed the Federation in 1957. So, is Singapore to come in in accordance with the Constitutional Documents which are of a radically, allegedly inferior character to the citizenship arrangements in 1957? That is what seemingly, on the face of it, that proposal seeks. Are we, who have been asking for equality with other States, to take into account what subsequently transpired with reference to this Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1962? For you will remember, we have been consistently seeking equality since 1957. What are the answers? What is the meaning of proposal (b) ? Is this the way for the Government of the people to treat our people who elected them? To treat their own people with falsehoods, with misleading statements, with false trails and with perversion? How can they put proposal (b) to the people of Singapore without first clarifying what it means? Could we not get a jurist opinion as to the exact legal significance of those terms? Could we not publish it, Sir? It is on this basis I ask you to consider the second alternative. For I say to you, that in the context of last year it was different, but in the context of today, to put that proposal without clarification as to its exact legal meaning is a fraud upon the people. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister on 4th of July, at page 14 of the transcript [Vol. 18, No. 6, col. 685] said: `If a man fully understands the alternatives and indicates his choice showing which he prefers ...'. Yes, but how can he fully understand the alternative when the second alternative is a large question mark today ---

It was what you had asked for!

--- with two major contending interpretations radically different? How is he supposed to understand that alternative today? The Gentleman across the Floor, Mr Speaker, Sir, who goes by the designation of the Minister for Home Affairs, says it was what I had asked for. May we come to it now? Mr Speaker, if you will remember, I referred to the only platform the Workers' Party had not to the only copy of a platform that the Workers' Party had. We have not changed our stand and it remains our stand. And, Sir, it has been quoted to you - I am delighted - by my opponents. I take pride in the fact that they think it is important, as we think it is important, because it is our very first plank. I will read it: `The basis and framework of all policy must be recognition of the fact that Singapore is geographically, ethnically, and economically part of Malaya and the only healthy ultimate solution is integration with Malaya on an equal basis with other states...'. Nothing about Constitutional Documents so far; this being a platform, Sir, to be distributed to the people was put in lay language which is understood by the people. Not with the "whereases" and "wherefores" and "therebys" and "in the premises" of the lawyer --- [Interruption]. So, Sir, what did we mean by that? Mr Speaker, Sir, very unfortunately, that phrase of ours, "equal basis with other States," - you will notice first that did not mention, for example, that we wanted a free port status. Of the 11 States in the Federation, there is only one that has a free port status, but I do not think anybody, short of the insane and Members of the P.A.P., would for a moment doubt that we meant "on an equal basis" with a free port status, because that is accepted by the Federation as good for the Federation, and good for us. I mean it was an implied thing that everybody recognised that the Federation would agree to a free port status. What did we mean by "integration with Malaya on an equal basis with other States"? Here, curiously of all people, you know, who, Sir, comes to my assistance? The Member for Cairnhill! Now, let me quote him explaining me. It is very interesting, because, after all, he is my political opponent and he has no interest to assist; but if he says something, and he is in fact correct, it comes better from him than it comes from me. I ask you to look at the Hansard of the 22nd of November, 1961, Sir, at column 438. There you will find the Member for Cairnhill saying: `We all know what we mean by the word "merger". Merger means the integration of Singapore as a part of the Federation and the rights enjoyed by the citizens of the Federation will be conferred on the citizens of Singapore when merger takes place. That is what we all mean by merger, and what we all know. But unfortunately, because of the political moves on the part of ... the Prime Minister and his ex-comrades, merger has been twisted to mean something else.' So there you have a very honest explanation of what everybody understood by the word "merger" at the time; what we all understood by "integration on an equal basis", even the P.A.P. But let us continue, Sir, because when you find a lode like this, you should try and work it a little more. The Member for Cairnhill again in column 456: `There can be only one meaning for merger - complete integration.' And finally, Sir, at column 462: `I would urge upon the P.A.P. in all their speeches after this not to try to claim that Cmd. Paper No. 33 is bringing about merger.' Sir, that is the explanation of what we meant by merger on "an equal basis with other States". Using lay language - complete integration, complete identification. And I would ask the Minister for Home Affairs, and I would ask those who are here to listen, did they not mean the same, when they spoke of "struggling for independence through merger"? And are they merely indulging - I would not go through those adjectives, Sir - but this, this specious argument which started from November onwards, this which has sullied even our language, Sir, the equal of which I have never met, except during the time when I was imprisoned and I used to hear those officers in jackboots using language about fair treatment to prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and nonsense like that with completely straight faces, and they knew they were lying in their throats. They used words like the Communist use the words "socialism" and "democracy" to explain their system. So the P.A.P. are using words which have been shorn of their meaning, which have been distorted. Sir, the P.A.P. have in these intervening months introduced a red herring. But before I deal with this red herring, I want you to notice a very interesting aspect of the Federation Constitution. Mind you, I will be quite frank. At the time I had to draft my platform on an equal basis with other States, I was not conscious of the legal technicalities which help me. But I would like to draw your attention to this, Sir. That at the material time when I had written this, there were, in fact, in existence in the Federation in 9 out of the 11 States persons who were known as State nationals, rulers of the subjects. Those Rulers of the subjects were ---

Subjects of the Rulers.

I am much obliged to the Member for Cairnhill. Subjects of the Rulers, Sir. There must indeed be a great deal of tension in this House if a slip like that can cause such hilarity. But let us go back. At that stage, Sir - this is important to recognise - there were subjects of the Rulers who were State nationals, that is to say, Johore nationals, Negri Sembilan Nationals, Kedah nationals. Sir, under Article 28 of the Constitution, those State nationals became Federal citizens automatically. The Prime Minister, in a speech which would no doubt have received all the adulation which the Press now so subserviently has been giving it, has said, "if you can give me an analogy to give automatic citizenship to the people of Singapore, I shall fight for it." Yes, you will fight for it. This is the analogy. Singapore has State nationals. The citizens of Singapore are in the same position as the subjects of the Ruler of Johore. Should they not then have the same, analogous treatment? That is, analogous treatment to that accorded to the subjects of the Rulers. Can they be accorded automatic citizenship? Mr Speaker, I would like to read you one paragraph which might interest you. The Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitution Commission, known as the Reid Commission, made in 1957, and I read from paragraph 37. Sir, they said that if we can show them that Singapore citizens should automatically be citizens of the Federation, this is paragraph 37: `We recommend that all who have rights of citizenship before Merdeka Day should continue to have such rights. Those who have already established their rights of citizenship should continue to be citizens after Merdeka Day and they would not be required to make any further claim. Those who are now citizens by operation of law but who have not yet established their rights ---', but that is no longer applicable. And they refer, Sir, to Article 14 and Article 15, sub-clause (1) . So their recommendation was that all who had citizenship rights at that time in connection with the Federation of Malaya should continue to have those rights. I say to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the context of the second proposal, to speak of our going in in accordance with the constitutional provisions is fraudulent, because at the time in 1957 when the Constitution came into force in August, there were no Singapore citizens. There was no provision in the Federation Constitution for Singapore citizens. And consequently, Sir, if we go in technically and legalistically, without any special provision under Article 22 of the Constitution, every single one of us would not be a Federal citizen. And you know what we would be, Sir? I know that this anomaly should cause some risibility. We would not be Federal citizens, but we would be British subjects. We would be British subjects! Singapore citizens! Federation nationals and British subjects! That is our Merdeka! Not one of us would be entitled to automatic citizenship. Those of us who want to have Federal citizenship will have to apply. Is that the spirit of the Constitutional Documents of the Federation? Article 22, which seems to arouse such hilarity on the Government benches, was specifically incorporated in the Constitution of the Federation in order to enable the Federation to grant citizenship on our joining the Federation, and, it was at that time thought, Brunei too. Sir, is it fair to suggest that proposal (b), as it stands, is an honest or an understandable or a reasonable alternative to put to the people, that on Merger Day not one of us will have Federal citizenship, not one of us can become a Federation citizen, not one of us can vote. Not merely 341,000. Those 300,000 odd, Sir, would merely be precluded from even making an application. Because they have not got the qualifications. But there are those of us who can apply and in the months to come we might be granted Federal citizenship. But the point is, is that the spirit in which the other 11 States entered into the Federation, or formed - they never entered - the Federation? You heard me read out the Reid Commission's Report and how its recommendations were accepted in Article 14. You know, Sir, Article 28 makes subjects of the Ruler Federation citizens. Well, Sir, subjects of the Ruler are State nationals. Why cannot the State nationals of Singapore automatically have Federation citizenship? If we are to talk of the spirit of the constitutional documents, that is the spirit, Mr Speaker. To put the technicalities is to put the fraud because since 1957 when these documents were published, there has been a new entity, Sir, a new status - the status of Singapore citizenship created by the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance of that year under which all 642,000 citizens enjoy our citizenship rights. How are these to be provided for? Sir, even the Minister for Law - I have at no time made any secret of my assessment of his intellectual understanding - had this to say. I refer you to Hansard of 22nd of November, 1961, at column 481, Sir. He recognised that you have to use Article 22. You cannot have any kind of a merger without it. These are his phrases, Sir - I will refer you to that paragraph: `It is obvious, Sir, that under the provisions of Articles 4 and 22 of the Federation Constitution, special arrangements would have to be made on citizenship at the time of merger.' Right at the top, Sir, he said Article 4; then he changed it to Article 2; I am just putting it in the proper context. Now, Sir, he himself recognises that "special arrangements would have to be made on citizenship ..." But here you are putting proposal (b) - nothing about citizenship. Yes, not only that, but I would remind you, Sir, the arch distortioner of the P.A.P. - the Minister for Culture - said at column 499 of 22nd of November. 1961, who started this campaign, this campaign of smokescreen about what the Barisan Sosialis wanted, what the Communists want and now, it seems according to the Prime Minister, what everybody wants. Let us see what the Minister for Culture said: `Originally the Barisan Sosialis leaders demanded merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca - I repeat, Sir, on the basis of Penang and Malacca. We correctly pointed out that the Barisan Sosialis' proposal would have meant that only about 284,000 out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for Federal citizenship under the present citizenship laws of the Federation.' That is not true, Sir; nobody would automatically qualify; there is no automatic transfer of citizenship; no provision. He goes on to say, "Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis' leaders are really sincere, ..." - we will come to this `really sincere'; they can fight it out between themselves. Sir, therefore, you recognise that unless special provisions, as the Minister for Law indicated, are made under Article 22 of the Constitution of the Federation, there can be no question of any of our citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens, because there is no provision in the Constitution for automatic grant of citizenship on the accession of any new territory. There was in respect of the time when all the eleven territories coagulated but there is no provision for the accession of any new territory having automatic citizenship except insofar as Parliament grants it under Article 22. So this is the proposal which they seek to put to the people. Is this an honest proposal, because let me remind you, Mr Speaker, that they say they are going to put - and how often have they repeated it - two honest alternatives - honest as a P.A.P. corkscrew; "honest". I will remind you of some of their phrases. The Minister for Law said on 2nd July at page 63 of the transcript [Vol. 18, No. 4, col. 517]: `There is nothing undemocratic in giving the voter the right to choose between two or more honest proposals in a referendum...' Is this an honest proposal? And, Sir, why do I support this Barisan Sosialis' amendment? Let me remind you; they do put their feet in it sometimes, Sir, because sometimes they forget that they, how shall I say it, have got to maintain a certain line of distortion, and you have the Minister for Finance at column 131 in Select Committee of the 8th of May [Official Report No. 3]. Sir, saying this: `There is an advantage, in principle, in restricting a referendum to posing one question.' Yes, I agree with him. Why take away this advantage? I agree completely. "There is an advantage, in principle, in restricting a referendum to posing one question." While recognising that advantage, why do they want to pose a question whose meaning they have sullied, whose meaning they have made controversial, whose meaning they have left in doubt and in respect of which they give no definition? Now, Sir, supposing we do, how do we know how it is going to be implemented - what meaning is going to be given to proposal (b)? At least, if we had an agreed explanation of its meaning between the two Governments - the Federation Government and the Singapore Government - we could know what we are about, but we have no such agreement, Sir. We have no such agreement to its meaning, and we have to leave ourselves to the tender mercies of the P.A.P. dictionary. Sir, they say they want to put the Opposition's stand: "What is wrong with our putting the Opposition's stand?" Their tender regard for the Opposition is very, very touching. We all believe it, Sir - these crocodile tears of regard and consideration. Let us see how they chop and change and chop again. Sir, on 22nd November, 1961, at column 488 the Minister for Law - and I ask you to note his words - said: `Sir, we believe that complete merger will be totally unacceptable to the Federation Parliament. and they have said so.' Well, but on 12th June over Radio P.A.P. - broadcast on the l4th - this is what the Prime Minister said: `If the people reject the White Paper proposals, they just vote for complete merger. That is the rejection of the White Paper proposals and we will get them complete merger.' I wonder how the Prime Minister and the Minister for Law square their views, or do they not ever meet? First, the Minister for Law said: "We believe that complete merger will be totally unacceptable."; the Prime Minister over Radio P.A.P. on the 14th of June, "We will get them complete merger." I have the documents here, Sir, It is on page 8. Now, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs on the 3rd of July [Vol. 18, No. 5, cols. 581-2] - this was a few days ago - said, at page 28: `However, having made the first error of declaring for full and complete merger like Penang or Malacca, the Barisan Sosialis could not publicly repudiate their stand; and even if they want to, they dare not for they realise that they cannot stem the tide of history and go against the wishes of the people. However, they did not then expect the Government to take their proposition seriously, and that the Federation, in any case, would not accept it. Here, we see how dishonest and unfaithful the Barisan Sosialis are.' Firstly, we get the Prime Minister on the 12th June telling us he will get complete merger. On the 3rd July we get his Minister for Home Affairs saying that the suggestion is dishonest and unfaithful, to whom I am not quite sure. Where are we? Has language any meaning? Are we playing out a tragedy? A farce of the P.A.P. Has language no meaning to them? Have they no shame? No amount of grunting can help the Deputy Prime Minister. Here are facts, Sir, I have not invented them. 22nd November, the Minister for Law: "Complete merger impossible." 12th June, the Prime Minister: "We will get them complete merger." 3rd July, the Minister for Home Affairs: "Complete merger is dishonest and unfaithful." Sir, I do not understand that "dishonest and unfaithful". Sir, he has sought to quote me. I have here the full transcript, Sir, copied word for word, not now anymore. They slipped up in the Sunday Mail. I understand that there have been grave repercussions because they put the radio broadcast in full, the Sunday Mail of 1st July. Mr Speaker, he said that I wanted the question put about merger on an equal basis. May I read to you a very short paragraph: "Look at what the Opposition asked for on the 21st November. We amended a merger motion. We requested a genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State and with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day. That is the alternative the Opposition offered. That is the alternative for which 17 of the Opposition - three Parties - voted. That is the alternative which the P.A.P., after a marathon debate, turned down with a majority of 32 to 17, with their friends, the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O., voting with them. A genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State and with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day. If that alternative which we ask for is posed to the people. I am prepared to apologise publicly and to pay a thousand dollars to the National Union of Journalists." Could it be clearer in our stand? And he said I asked for merger on an equal basis. Sir, I would like to add this bit: `But I say this to you, whether it is one question or two questions. Even if they pose our question, I say the people should have the right to say "Yes" or "No".' Then, Sir, he quoted to you - that was the 27th June - only recently, he quoted to you from the 12th June which was broadcast on the 14th. I want to put it to you how it came about. Page 7. May I use names, Sir? To clarify it, Sir, I do not want to refer to the Member for Anson. It sounds absurd if I refer to myself as the Member for Anson.

Say "I".

I see. Thank you, Sir: I: `Who wants Penang and Malacca?' `Prime Minister: That is what the Barisan Sosialis asked.' Then notice: I: `Even if they made a mistake [even it they made a mistake] are we running the country for the Barisan? Are we having the referendum for the Barisan or for the people of Singapore?' `Prime Minister: These were solemn words, said solemnly.' I: `All right, they have withdrawn the words.'

The Member can say, "I said."

Sir, these technicalities sometimes make it an absurdity: `Prime Minister: They have withdrawn. True, true, they withdrew.' He has got it - even if it is alleged that before that date they wanted it. Here he admits, "True, true, they withdrew." This is the 12th June, Sir. An hon. Member: A P.A.P. twist.

And, Sir, recognise - I want you to see. They knew very well that they were distorting what the Barisan wanted. At page 9, Sir: `Mr Prime Minister to the Member for Queenstown: "By complete misconception of what you were advocating, you did so."' So he knew it was a misconception, in his words, that the Member for Queenstown meant something else. `You did so not knowing what you were in fact proposing, as your Opposition friend, the Member for Hong Lim, has said.' Then, Sir, this is where the part quoted. You see how it can be taken out of Context: `I said: It is the P.A.P. genius for dishonest distortion that makes the Prime Minister say the Opposition wants a merger according to Penang and Malacca.' He has heard repeatedly the Barisan say what they meant was they wanted equality like every other State. It was in that context there came the phrase they mistakenly used, Penang and Malacca. If you want to call it a mistake. The position is this. In lay language, what do we all understand by "on a basis of equality with other States."? It was lay language that we were using, and this analogy which is perfectly legitimate, and a perfectly honest one. Anything the P.A.P. touches is turned to filth. There was a man called Croesus and everything he touched was turned to gold. I wish he had touched the P.A.P.

That was Midas.

Who wants this proposal (b)? Sir, they have a gentleman they call a Political Secretary, paid by us, Sir, paid by the State - a Political Secretary by the name of Jek Yuen Thong, a gentleman who became famous when he went down before the Member for Hong Lim in a somewhat disastrous effort. But let us come back to this gentleman, Mr Jek Yuen Thong, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, in his third radio talk. He said, "The Communists say they want full merger [now we have got it, Sir] like Penang and Malacca. So what is wrong with asking the people if they approve of this Communist idea?" I am quite sure the P.A.P. Government, having been, shall we say, a sleeping partner of the Communists for so long, have a very tender regard for their erstwhile comrades, and if they want to put the Communist idea, I for one take strong exception that it should be suggested that there should be many people of Singapore who have any sympathy for the Communists --- An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

--- but if the P.A.P., being in power, seek to give a sop to their erstwhile bed companions, what is wrong with putting the Opposition stand? What is wrong with putting the united Opposition stand, Sir, made in this Assembly with due formality on the 21st November, 1961, which you find at column 406? What is wrong with putting it? They have a tender regard for the Opposition? Here is what the Opposition has said. We repeated it over the radio; we pleaded for it. What is wrong with putting our stand which is: `genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as a twelfth State, and with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day.' 17 Opposition Members voted for this, no Communists, 17 of us. Why can we not have that? If you want to give the Communists their say; if you want to give the S.P.A. their say; if you want to give everybody his say; give us on these two Back-benches a chance to put our proposal to the people. Oh, no, Mr Speaker, that would be a fraud upon the people of Singapore! That, it seems, is a fraud. Why is it a fraud? They say it is dishonest to ask for it because we know we cannot get it. You will remember, Sir, I have quoted and I do not want to repeat, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister today, it is dishonest to put complete merger that we want; but it is dishonest to put our stand on the ballot paper because we know we cannot get it. Sir, that is a very curious definition of dishonesty. I want to say this to you. If a man says, "I want to marry Miss X." He is dishonest because he knows she does not want him! Right, he says, "I will not mary Miss A. I will not marry Miss B. I will not marry Miss D. I will not marry till I marry Miss X." He is prepared to wait for Miss X. What is dishonest about that? But I want to show you, Sir, these short memory gentlemen, I think you will remember perhaps a day of long ago, the 5th of April, 1956, Sir. At column 1862, there was a motion before this House, and the operative words of that motion, Mr Speaker, were: `.... the Assembly instructs its All-Party Delegation to the forthcoming Constitutional Talks in London to seek forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce.' Was it dishonest? It was? Well, I say I do not want to misinterpret the Deputy Prime Minister, but let me remind him, Sir, that at column 1863 there were 27 Ayes and not one No; and amongst the Ayes were his friend, the present Prime Minister, his friend the Minister for Labour, and his friend, is it the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, Sir?

Yes.

The Deputy Prime Minister. Those were the people who voted in favour of our demanding forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth.

You did not get it.

No, but was it dishonest? We tried it. Mr Speaker, was it dishonest to try for something that you know is good?

That would have postponed merger.

I am obliged to the Minister - some interjections are helpful. Now, Sir, he says that means postponing merger. Fair enough. Sir, let us look at the picture. We asked for our alternative because it is a genuine proposal. It is said by the P.A.P. that it is not one which would today find acceptance by the Federation, and therefore merger would have to be postponed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know I am said to use flamboyant analogy, but if I wanted to get married ---

You are already married!

All right, I am already married. Mr Speaker, Sir, if a girl wants to get married to a man; if he refuses and she knows she cannot do it today, but she may do it next year, so today she becomes his mistress! That way she gets no marriage. And I say to you, Mr Speaker, merger is inevitable. That is right. I agree completely. It is inevitable because with growing maturity the Federation will more and more recognise the vital character of Singapore as the kingpin of South-East Asia. We are not asking for the moon, Mr Speaker, Sir. Our modesty is something to be amazed at. Is that not modesty, being prepared, as I am prepared on behalf of my Party, to accept disproportionate representation discriminatory to Singapore? I say the postponement is a postponement for the good, because if you started off on the wrong foot as the White Paper, I may be wrong in my opinion, but in my honest opinion, with the White Paper you start off on the wrong foot, it could bring grave consequences and it would be better to postpone and get off on the right foot than seek to force the White Paper through. In this matter, in particular, Sir, it may not be inappropriate at this juncture to draw attention to a reply to me from the Lady from Mountbatten who said, "Would you prefer to be democratic and see democracy die, or undemocratic in order to save democracy?" That is a jesuit point of view, Sir, but let us examine it. I ask the Lady from Mountbatten how much of democracy is left today after that Referendum Bill? How much of it is she going to save and for whom? It is a hole in a corner for timorous mice. There is no room for a man to stand up in what is left of democracy ---

Order. The hon. Member must remember he is addressing the Chair and he has raised his voice. Up to now I have not stopped him, but I think he is raising it a bit too much. I must ask him to modulate his voice.

My apology, Mr Speaker, to have contributed even a little to your discomfort. Mr Speaker, at page 64 of the 2nd of July [Hansard Vol. 18 No. 4, col. 518], a week ago, Sir, last Monday, the Minister for Law stated that it would be a fraud on the electorate if, in fact, a no-merger proposal in the guise of the Barisan Sosialis proposal for complete merger with automatic conversion of citizenship and proportionate representation is put to them. So we have gone full circle from the Minister for Law on 22nd November, 1961, saying it is unacceptable, to the Prime Minister on 12th June saying that he will get complete merger for us, to the Minister for Home Affairs on the 3rd of July saying that this is a fraud on the people, and the Minister for Law on the 2nd of July saying that it is a no-merger proposal and it is a fraud. They seem to have got together this time. Why is it a fraud, Mr Speaker, when in truth and in fact every single human being in Singapore understood by merger that there would be automatic citizenship and we would go in as a constituent State. This was what we all understood and this, in the language of the P.A.P., is a fraud. Then may I ask the P.A.P. that they put a fraud in their constitution saying they "struggle for independence through merger." Or did they understand something else by merger? So, Sir, when the Prime Minister said pompously, "We will permit the people to decide between three alternatives," he is in fact only giving them one, for (b) is one about whose meaning controversy rages and there is no agreement between Singapore and Federation Government as to its meaning. How can you treat people with such contempt, Sir? How can you throw out a proposal like that and say that it is the Opposition who wants it when the Opposition is on the record as wanting something precise? How can people quite so blatantly indulge in falsehoods? Then. Sir, the proposal of the Member for Cairnhill, which seems to have the seed of something worthwhile, and I would like to reserve my right to speak when I understand it fully. The main objection that I can see at this stage is this, Sir, If the terms are published before the referendum, then, of course, it is a perfectly legitimate question to put to the people. But if the terms are secret, is it fair to put to the people a pig in a poke? I mean, you are asking people to change their lives, their entire future, to opt for a constitution which will guide their destinies, which will govern their destinies and that of their descendants. Can you do it just punting on a dark horse? Because a horse is out of Corruption from Dishonesty, therefore, it might be a winner called the P.A.P. Sir, the Prime Minister has referred to a letter which was sent by 19 Members of this House to the United Nations and he had the inpertinence to call it scurrilous. With your permission, Sir, it is only two paragraphs; I would like to read those two paragraphs in fairness: `The United Kingdom proposes shortly to transfer sovereignty over the colonial State of Singapore to the Federation of Malaya. We are satisfied that this transfer of sovereignty will take place in a manner otherwise than through the free expression of the wishes of the people of Singapore and contrary to the spirit and the letter of resolution 1,514 (15th General Assembly) of the United Nations General Assembly of the 14th December, 1960. We attach herewith a memorandum which sets out very briefly the true position and urgency of the situation. We appeal to the United Nations, through its Committee on Colonies, to send out an observer urgently to Singapore to ascertain the exact facts and to judge whether it is, as we believe, a matter for intervention by the United States.'. Mr Speaker, in the P.A.P. language, that is scurrilous.

Not the United States, the United Nations.

I am so sorry. I am much obliged. The United Nations. Thank you for the correction. That, in P.A.P. language, is scurrilous. I shall not be taking very long, Sir. But I do want to show you that the capacity for falsehood of the P.A.P. is illimitable. It is boundless. And the capacity of its members to face the people without shame is quite unbelievable. Sir, here, right in this House, we have the Prime Minister because he is annoyed with a step which the Opposition felt should be taken. Whether it succeeds or not, Sir, it is an outlet for the frustration of our people who are suffering today. We are not allowed to hold a national convention in Badminton Hall. Therefore, it seems we have become Communists, the U.P.P. and ourselves, we are all Communists because we are following the Communist tactic. So no meeting at the Badminton Hall. Press reports of the Opposition's stand are being heavily excised in the newspapers. Sir, the people are reaching a stage when I say it is necessary to give them a healthy outlet. Here we seek a constitutional and legitimate approach to protest against the proposed transfer by the United Kingdom in a manner contrary to the freely expressed wishes of the people and we are told it is scurrilous because he does not like it. We are told the group that seeks to have the Badminton Hall to have a meeting there is Communist. Everybody is a Communist. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are told that what is filthy is right, that proposal (b) which is thoroughly dishonest, is honest. We are told that it is absolutely clear and unambiguous. Sir, I heard this evening from the Prime Minister a remark, whose significance, I do not know, may not have been fully appreciated by other Members. He has told us that this House will be suspended at the end of this sitting and the Session will be prorogued. Under the Constitution he does not have to call another meeting of the Assembly for 12 months. I had hoped, Sir, when I saw the Order Paper and noticed that the Bills were sent to Select Committee that, in fact, we would be sitting and earning our allowance, that we would be in a position to continue at least to keep an eye, as a watch-dog keeps an eye, on the interests of our people. But now we are to be prorogued, he has got what he wants, he has bulldozed it through. So whether it is in Cameron Highlands playing golf, or whether it is with his Right-wing cronies drinking beer, or whether it is evolving further Machiavellian schemes with his basic contempt for our people and for the democratic process, our Prime Minister will then be free, as free as any dictator, to do with us as he wills. Mr Speaker, the second question is dishonest in the context of today, although it would have been a legitimate one ten months ago. But in the context of today and the falsifications of the P.A.P., or shall we say, the misunderstandings, but in the context of its ambiguity today the fact that nobody knows exactly what it means, it is unreasonable, particularly when you use that new phrase which says "in accordance with the Constitutional Documents of the Federation of Malaya". Constitutional Documents of the Federation of Malaya - many of them, all unspecified, one of them the 1962 Constitution (Amendment) Act which radically alters citizenship laws. It is dishonest to put to the people anything that is not clear and cannot be easily understood. They kept saying to us, and the Prime Minister himself said, "If a man fully understands the alternatives..." - that was the phrase he used on 4th July-how is anybody going to understand fully alternative (b), Sir? As it stands, it is not merely a question "analogous to the provisions of the constitutional documents", but with reference to their technical terms. And how does he know that he can get from the Tunku what he understands? Would you not agree, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if he has any respect for our people he would have first worked out at least a draft with the Federation Government as to the possible meaning of that alternative and then put it to our people? Mr Speaker, the Lady from Mountbatten, with feminine adulation of her leader, said to us that it was her great leader, the Member for Cairnhill, who, having gone into the P.A.P. den and bearded the Prime Minister, came forth with the promise that the questions would be discussed in this Assembly. I am sorry to disappoint the Lady from Mountbatten. But as you know, the motion which is now item No. 10 on the Order Paper was received by you a long, long time before the radio forum on which the Member for Cairnhill appeared with the Prime Minister. It was circulated to them and they knew that because of that motion, the questions had to be discussed in this Assembly. So that is the way in which the S.P.A. bearded the P.A.P. valiantly, coming forth with the scalp of the Prime Minister and the promise of the questions being discussed. 7.47 p.m.

But what happened after that? Because the Government have a preemption - and the Lady from Mountbatten will remember only a couple of days before the meeting started - they put in their motion which we are now discussing, and they put it as number one on the Order Paper to be heard before our's. I am not complaining, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that the Lady from Mountbatten would wish to have the facts straight, that it was not thanks to the S.P.A. or to any sense of decency of the P.A.P. but it was thanks to constitutional procedure and Standing Orders which compel discussion of these questions as to what is to be put to the people of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendment of the Member for Queenstown because in fact it leaves to the people to vote on one question which has been spelt out and it leaves it to them in an honest manner - a referendum to be held for the people to decide whether they accept or reject the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command No. 33 of 1961. That is the one before us. All other proposals are intended as a smokescreen. If we are compelled to have several proposals, let us have at least the Opposition's proposal of the 21st November, 1961, incorporated, that is to say genuine merger, with Singapore coming in as the twelfth state, and with automatic citizenship for our citizens. But that is not in fact ---

That is not on an equal basis.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Home Affairs says that is not on an equal basis. I do not know, Sir, and I will spell it out, because I am sure others have understood. There were nine Malay States in the Federation in 1957. Each of those nine Malay States had a special Act, Sir, providing for State nationals known as subjects of the Rulers. Those State nationals, on Merger Day, became Federation citizens automatically. Singapore, in 1957 August, had no Singapore citizens, but after 1957 August, we have the 1957 Citizenship Ordinance. Under the Citizenship Ordinance, we had nationals of the State of Singapore known as Singapore citizens. By analogy, those nationals of the State of Singapore are similar in status to the subjects of the Rulers of the Malay States of the Federation. By analogy, they should become Federation citizens - Q.E.D. Do I have to spell it out again? And finally, yet once more - the Reid Report. I will not read it except to remind you that the Reid Commission emphasised that all those who had citizenship rights should have them in common on Merger Day. And it provided Article 14. The spirit of that is this: those of us who have citizenship rights in Singapore should have them on Merger Day, in common with the others as common citizens - Q.E.D.

That is what you think.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am indeed grateful to the Member for Anson for giving me a little time before the dinner break to speak on this very important issue now before the House. I can understand the strong feelings of the Member for Anson. I can understand why he should speak in such flowery language - in language that condemns the P.A.P. in no uncertain terms. It is because the P.A.P., whenever they make any reference to the Member for Anson, forget that they have a Ministry of Culture and they can never become cultured! And that is what goes against the grain of the Member for Anson. In fact, the Member for Anson nearly blew his top off just now.

That will be good.

I am indeed very happy to see that that has not happened, because we like him in this Assembly. We would like him to remain as long as there are elections in Singapore.

Thank you.

Sir, maybe because of his strong feelings of grave injustice perpetrated by the P.A.P., he has become a little bit, shall we say, off colour in his speech, so much so that he mentioned "the United States" when he meant "the United Nations". He mentioned Rulers of the subjects when he meant subjects of the Rulers. Then he mentioned dishonest distortion as if distortion could ever be honest. Sir, speaking on the amendment of the day, I am indeed surprised at the amendment of the Member for Queenstown, that he has asked for a one-question referendum. He made it as far back as April when the motion of the Member for Anson was being debated for a referendum. The Barisan Sosialis tried it then. They tried again during the Committee stage on the Referendum Bill. And they now try it again. Although the Member for Queenstown did say that if this failed he had another proposal, the fourth proposal, which he would like to put forth. And the Member for Anson himself has given notice of an amendment to proposal (b) . I think this matter would have been expeditiously ---

On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the light of what I understand will be the fourth alternative which is what I seek, if we cannot have one question, I shall not be moving my amendment of which notice has been given.

I am very glad to hear that the Member for Anson will not be moving the amendment of which he has given notice. That would mean that he does not feel so strongly about proposal (b) at all. I thought that he felt so strongly about it that he put in his amendment and therefore he wanted to have that proposal corrected in the light of his criticism. But now it seems that he might not even move his amendment. He is quite prepared to allow this proposal to go through after all - he has said that - just because the Barisan Sosialis is putting in a fourth proposal. Sir, it is true that the debate on this referendum and on merger has got on the nerves of all Members in this House and that at times we do not behave rationally as we want to behave, but that is not our fault. It is all due to the wear and tear and the strain that we have been subjected to by this party warfare between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., and those who do not belong to the Party are just taken into the arena. Things are getting more and more confused, and the longer the debate carries on the more confused the debate will be. Sir, since it has been moved by the Member for Queenstown, I must say why I object to the one-question referendum. I hate to repeat what I have been saying, but I must do so in order to make our position clear. A one-question referendum will not get the right answer - the answer from the people whether or not they want closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya. The one-question referendum will just give the long-awaited opportunity to the electors to write "finish" to the life of the P.A.P. They would gleefully just cross out Command Paper No. 33 as if to say, "The sooner the P.A.P. gets out of the picture, the healthier it will be for politics in Singapore." That is why I say a one-question referendum will not give the right answer. As to suitable alternative questions, the Member for Anson felt it necessary to cross swords with the Lady from Mountbatten and try to claim credit that it was he, because of the notice of his motion, that is to say, item 10 on the Order Paper, who had been successful in forcing the Government to agree to debate the questions to be proposed in a referendum. Sir, I, who have received no legal training, am a bit chary in entering into a debate with the hon. Member for Anson, who is a very well-known lawyer. But I must make it clear to him that item 10 on the Order Paper does not, under the Standing Orders, force the Government to debate the questions at all. Item 10 is an attempt by the Member for Anson to try and force the Government to agree to a one-question referendum. And if the Government had not agreed to have the questions debated in this Assembly, no questions would have been debated in this Assembly other than the Government simply saying "No" to the motion; and the Member for Anson, and also his Barisan Sosialis colleagues, would be wanting to say, "Yes" to the motion. He cannot, I submit, claim credit that it was he who forced the Government to have the question debated in this Assembly, just because he has given notice of a motion - item 10 on the Order Paper - for debate, and trying to corner the Government into agreeing to a one-question referendum and fixing a time limit for polling day. Sir, we do not want to claim credit for anything done at all. On this very important national issue, let all Parties in this Assembly forget party credits. Let us all work together at least on this one issue to get the people to go to the referendum and vote for closer relationship with the Federation. There should be no question of a Barisan Sosialis proposal, or a Workers' Party proposal, or even a S.P.A. proposal. In fact, the proposal that I am going to move as an amendment should not be taken as a S.P.A. proposal, and I will touch on that when the time comes. Let us place all the propositions ---

I say all the propositions.

--- all the alternative questions to the electors. And the alternatives must give due recognition to facts. In trying to establish closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya, we must try to put our heads together to find out how many forms of closer association there can be. If there are five forms, let us put up five forms. If there are three or two, let us put up three or two. Let us put our heads together and bring back to the electors for a referendum questions that have relationship to facts. Now proposal No. 1 of Command Paper No. 33 is, in fact, not merger. It is a form of closer association. It is a form which the P.A.P., as a Government, has secured from the Federation Government. And it is a form of closer relationship which the S.P.A./Alliance has fought for, because the S.P.A./Alliance must, in all its consideration on matters of public importance, have their facts straight. The P.A.P., as a Government, can only get that and no more. But it does not mean that Command Paper 33 is not open to further improvements. Of course, once we have established closer relationship, future governments can carry on from where the P.A.P. has left off. It is not merger. It is a son of half merger. Therefore, after having got that form of merger - a half merger, let us say - must we now try to say that there must be 75 per cent or 80 per cent or 90 per cent merger? There could be no other alternative than a complete merger. If it is 50 per cent, we could not just say, "I think we should try and have 70 per cent," because the electorate will not know what 70 per cent means. 50 per cent is embodied in the White Paper. Let us have the 50 per cent, if the electorate think that that is a good thing under the present circumstances. Or if we do not want 50 per cent, well let us have a hundred per cent, that is, complete and unconditional merger. The wording of the Government is this: a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya. And it is because of the way it is worded that the Member for Anson took strong exception to it and tried to accuse the P.A.P. of wanting to perpetrate a fraud, and the P.A.P. says that the Barisan is wanting to perpetrate a fraud. Let us forget all frauds. Let us not call each other names. It would make the public more confused. If one is trying to be cleverer than the other in this important issue, if one is trying to outdo the other in language, in distortion, and in trying to play on the emotions of the masses, we may reach a very unhealthy state of affairs. An hon. Member: You want to support the P.A.P. ---

And if an unhealthy state of affairs is reached, each and every one of us here is responsible, not only the Barisan and not only the P.A.P. All of us who are elected representatives of the people should try to give a clear-cut picture to the electorate, free from emotion, free from party political content, and let the electorate choose in a very calm and peaceful atmosphere.

An honest referendum!

Sir, I am also getting confused myself because I am getting a battery of harmless shots from behind! The Member for Anson tries to see in this proposal (b) an attempt to cheat the electorate. I think what is more important to the country is to see that the wording of the questions should be free from possible misinterpretation, and it would be left to the political Parties represented in this Assembly to hold a referendum meeting and speak about their particular stand. The P.A.P. and the S.P.A./Alliance will do their best to explain to the people why Command Paper 33 is in the best interest of the people of Singapore. If the Barisan Sosialis or the Workers' Party want complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis with the other eleven States, they can go to the people and explain their stand; what they mean, that there should be automatic citizenship: and what is meant by proposal (b); and what they support is that they want Singapore to join the Federation as one of the states of the Federation with all its privileges as well as its responsibilities. They will have to say what they mean by their automatic citizenship. But they will also have to explain to the people that once we get complete merger, there will be no autonomy on any subject whatsoever. They will have to go in - take all the benefits that are there and also accept all the disadvantages that complete merger could mean. If they present that picture as they see it to the electorate, and if the electorate vote for it in the image of the picture that they present, then the Government of the day will have to take due note of the decision of the electorate in the light of the picture presented to them by the Parties that are in favour. But all these arguments back and forth and this calling of names make people think that we have not even grown up. What is all this argument about? What is the use of saying, "I want complete merger. I want this. I want that."? If the Federation says "no" to you, it is just the end of it. Why all this unnecessary calling of names? If there are Political parties that are for proposal (b) or may be for proposal (c) - when I come to move it- or for proposal (d), if it is accepted by this Assembly, then it would be left to the Government to go to the Federation Government and say, "Well, our White Paper is not accepted. The feeling of the people as a result of the referendum is proposal (b), proposal (c) or proposal (d)." Then it would be left to the Federation Government to consider whether they are prepared to reach agreement with Singapore on proposal (b), proposal (c) or proposal (d). But all the heat that is being generated here is just making the job more difficult should the electorate of Singapore decide on a form of closer relationship that is not Command Paper 33. But the less we raise our voice and shout at each other, the easier it will be for the Government to have to reopen discussions with the Federation Government if and when it is necessary as a result of the referendum.

Sham referendum!

Sir, the Member for Queenstown did say that we must put all the alternatives down. In other words, he was prepared to accept more than one question if, in his view, all the alternatives are put down. If that is his stand, why should he have wasted the time of this Assembly from about 3.15 p.m. right up to now to move his amendment knowing that that amendment will be defeated? I hope that the other Members of the Barisan Sosialis will not waste the time of this Assembly and say that their amendment could be put to the vote.

Why do you not cross the Floor?

Order.

It will be defeated. Sir, I think there is such a thing as silence means contempt. Sir, it should be defeated. Then we can go ahead with the Barisan's fourth alternative and we will at least have the time, energy and goodwill to give due thought to whatever proposal they may have as the fourth proposal.

Barisan alternative.

Sir, I think the tone of this debate could be kept down to normal if the P.A.P. do not start all over again that proposal (b) means what the Barisan want, citizens who were not born in Singapore will lose their citizenship rights. They should not try to say something which they themselves admit they are not sure of, because they have not consulted the jurists and it is up to the jurists to say. But if that is their contention, they are entitled to their contention. Other Parties who sincerely believe that proposal (b) means automatic citizenship are entitled to their views and they can put it to the electorate that proposal (b) means automatic citizenship and it is up to the electorate to choose. If they want automatic citizenship, they must also be prepared to accept the policies of the Government of the Federation of Malaya. There will be no more autonomy in any subject whatsoever, and if in the realisation of the privileges and responsibilities they want it, I say that the Government must reopen discussions with the Federation Government. It is wrong for the Prime Minister to say, as has been pointed out by the Member for Anson, "If you want (b), I will get (b)." The Prime Minister has no right to say it. The person who can say yes or no is the Government of the Federation of Malaya and not the Prime Minister of Singapore. All he can say is if the electorate choose (b), the Government will strive sincerely to get proposal (b) for the people. I think all these arguments brought in by the Member for Anson about the Reid recommendations and about the constitutional proposals in 1957, and that, according to his interpretation, if we enter the Federation and secure merger on an equal basis with any of the eleven states, it will mean that no citizens of Singapore will become citizens of the Federation are --- An hon. Member: Phooey.

--- I will not say phooey - just another unconscious effort on the part of the Member for Anson to bring more confusion to an already confused issue. His stand, as I clearly understand it, is that a complete and unconditional merger means automatic citizenship. Let us respect his stand. Let him try and sell that stand to the electorate in the same way as we in the S.P.A. Alliance will have to try and explain to the people that Cmd. Paper 33 is the best possible under a P.A.P. form of government. Of course, it could have been better had it not been a P.A.P. Government. But because we are realistic, we know the signs; we are prepared to support it. Here again I see another thing. The Prime Minister has brought in the question of the Malays' special privileges. I do not see why such an issue should have been brought in, Sir. Let us consider this issue - these special privileges - from the point of view of the socialists. The P.A.P. say that they are socialists; the Barisan claim that they are more socialist than the P.A.P. Therefore, what is the socialist doctrine? We should give to those that do not have. Those that have not must be given their due rights. Those that have must come to the help of those that do not have. A simple socialist principle. Those that have must help those that do not have, and in Malaya today, those that do not have just happen to be the Malays. So let us not say that we want to give special privileges to the Malays. Let us say that we are giving special privileges to those that do not have in order to make Malaya a better country for all to live in. Let us not try and bring in the communal issue. If the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. claim that they are genuine socialists ---

If the P.A.P. claim.

--- that is the proper way to tackle this question; not to bring in, say, the Chinese must come to the help of the Malays and the Malays will greatly benefit at the expense of the Chinese. That is wrong. Benefits will be given to those that must have the benefits, and those that already have the benefits must be content with what they have until there is a more just and more equal society. Sir, I really find little to pick fault with the Member for Anson when he criticised the P.A.P. in such strong terms. The P.A.P. have been doing all those things that the Member for Anson has described. One Minister says that it is impossible to have complete merger. The Prime Minister says, "I will get it for you." Another Minister says. "Come on, it bears no relationship to the facts." It is because they have now got into the position in which they have to keep on moving from one place to another, and in which, in order to beat distortion, they must also lend themselves to practising distortion. That is why all this confused situation has arisen. I would suggest to the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. that is to say, the Barisan Sosialis - they worked together as a Party and were pledged to merger, although the leader of the Barisan now says that the P.A.P. has never made any mention of merger. I think he was wrong, Sir. As soon as the P.A.P. came to power, they did make a few bleats about merger. Of course, they were not in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, or in any of their policy statements, but they did make a few bleats about merger.

It is not in the Five-Year Plan.

And every time they make those few bleats when the Member for Queenstown was sitting on the other side, they got slapped down hard by the Tunku. All because - and it can now be said - the Tunku knew that in the P.A.P. there were Communists who were sleeping with the P.A.P. And it was because the P.A.P. had awakened to the contamination that they had through sleeping with the Communists that the Tunku had come with this idea of Malaysia. And the P.A.P. was quick enough to catch on to it and went to see the Federation Government and reached agreement with them. There was really - if I may use the phrase - an indecent haste. The P.A.P. should have known that they would be reduced to 26 Members. If they had wanted to save all this unnecessary distortion that is going on, they could have had an All-Party Delegation. No, they did not want to have it, because they wanted to claim credit for it. That is where the first mistake was made. If they had not just wanted to be so quick at clutching the straw to save them from drowning, they would have been a little bit more sensible and would have consulted the Opposition Parties, and that would have made their job easier. And all this mud-slinging might not have taken place. I hope the Parties that will be holding referendum meetings will remember that they owe the first responsibility to the country. Let them go and present their case without distortion. If the Barisan feel that complete and unconditional merger is the one they want, and by that they mean they want automatic citizenship - I do not hear a distortion now ---

He said distortion.

--- they are free to do so. And if the electorate can be convinced by the Barisan Sosialis and by other political Parties working with the Barisan Sosialis, they are free to reject Cmd. Paper 33 and vote for a form of closer relationship that the Barisan thinks is best for the people of Singapore. Sir, I want to end this speech by appealing to Members in this House: in consideration of the questions to be posed in a referendum, let us not forget that the most important point to bear in mind is ---

To have an honest referendum.

--- the Government of the Federation of Malaya. The Member for Anson knows the feelings of the Tunku on such an important matter, and surely - I am sure he will in his appeal to the electorate at referendum meetings he will bear in mind that what he wants to sell to the electorate is something that the Tunku must also be prepared to buy. Let us not get the people to vote for something in the referendum which is not easy to achieve. We ---

On a point of explanation if the Member will permit, Sir. Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Has the Member for Cairnhill reason to believe that the Federation Government will be prepared to grant us terms equally favourable as those they are prepared to grant to the Bornean territories?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will touch on that when I move my amendment. In fact, I do not think it is right that I should move my amendment, and I cannot move my amendment until the amendment of the Member for Queenstown has been disposed of. And as the Member for Anson is so anxious to know what is in the bag, perhaps he could help me by telling the Barisan Sosialis boys, "Forget it, boys. Don't keep on whipping a dead horse."

That is a preview.

P.A.P. - dead horse.

Barisan horse.

Sir, the more the public keep on hearing speeches from the mouths of the Barisan Members, the more the public are coming to the realisation that the Barisan do not want merger. They do not want merger. So they are doing their best to confuse the issue and try to see how they can get out of their present difficulty. They do not want to hold referendum meetings where they will have to tell the electorate. "This is our stand. We want this form of merger because we believe this is good for you." And I hope that whatever form they try to present to the electorate will be presented in a manner that is ---

An honest referendum.

Order.

--- in a manner that is free from party political content. Of course, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis say that when it was born, there was a star. But what little I know of "starology" or whatever you call it, they do not know their parentage. They have no parentage at all, Sir. The Barisan Sosialis, the star that shines, the star that is deliberately misguiding the people of Singapore into trouble, the star that is not bringing light at all, the star that is bringing confusion ---

You are reading their horoscope.

You are speaking just like the Prime Minister!

Sir, even in this very mild speech of mine, the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. want to chip in. All I suggest to them is this: if they are really so keen on exterminating the other outside ---

S.P.A. comrades!

--- it is very simple, constitutional or otherwise. Sir, I do urge upon the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis, who in actual fact hope to be the P.A.P. - they claim they are the genuine P.A.P. - will just forget their vendetta. If they really love their country, now is the time to measure up ---

In an honest referendum.

--- now is the time to measure up honestly and squarely. Sir, I really do not understand why ---

Is the Member for Cairnhill going to finish his speech?

I have quite a lot more, Sir.

Then I think it is time to suspend. I suspend this sitting until half-past nine. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

The original Question was, That this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide between the alternatives of reunification on the basis of: (a) the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961 giving Singapore autonomy in education and labour; or (b) a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya. Since which an amendment has been moved, In line 3, to leave out from "their" to the end and insert- "wishes on the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide whether they accept or reject the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are against the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown. Our stand has been made clear on two previous occasions in April when the Member for Queenstown made an attempt to have this one-question referendum accepted by the Assembly and also during the Committee stage of the National Referendum Bill. I need not go over the reasons for our objection. Suffice it to say that a one-question referendum will not produce the right answer and the Barisan Sosialis are anxious to have that one-question referendum because it will mean the knock-out of the P.A.P. - and that is what they like to see. But we, who are conscious of our responsibility to the people of Singapore, are anxious to see that the referendum on merger must be conducted in an atmosphere free from distortions and in an atmosphere of calm and careful thinking on the part of the electorate, so that the right answer may be ascertained. If it is the desire of the majority of the electorate to choose a form of closer association that is not embodied in Command Paper 33, i.e., if they reject Command Paper 33, then it is the responsibility of the Government to get in touch with the Federation Government and convey to the Federation Government the desires of the people of Singapore and do their best to secure for Singapore the form of closer association that the referendum result shows. It is wrong on the part or the Prime Minister to say, "Tell me what you want and I will get it for you." He has no right to say it because he has no power to give what the people want. What he can say is to assure this House and the people of Singapore that whatever form of closer association the people of Singapore choose, it shall be his duty and responsibility to have discussions with the Federation Government with a view to implementing the result of the referendum. The Member for Anson was carried away by his strong criticism of the P.A.P. and he even went to the extent of describing distortion as dishonest. There cannot be honest distortion and dishonest distortion; a distortion is a distortion; it is a twisting of facts. He said that there is a very curious definition of dishonesty. He went on to explain what he meant by this, that proposal (b) in the motion of the Prime Minister is dishonest in the context of today although it could have been honest 10 months ago. So in this merger issue, Sir, everything is getting confused. It would seem to the mind of the Member for Anson that honest things can become dishonest things just through the process of time. The Member for Anson again found occasion to criticise the Press, but, Sir, we in the Opposition have seen that the Member for Anson secures more coverage than any other Member of the Opposition. We do not grudge him that. The Member for Anson again said that other proposals for closer association are intended to be a smoke-screen. I think Sir, he, as a responsible Member and leader of a responsible Party - so he claims - must not use words that will tend to make the people more confused. He was prepared to have more than one question posed in a referendum and yet through his exuberance he described other questions to be posed as a smokescreen. Surely, Sir, when we debate the questions to be posed in a referendum, it is essential for all Members of this Assembly, from all political Parties represented in this Assembly, to discuss the questions in a calm cool and collected manner with a view to putting our heads together to find out what other forms of closer association there can be apart from Command Paper 33. If there are three possible and practicable forms of closer association, then those forms must be the subject of questions to be posed in a referendum. No Party in this House should try to endeavour to pose a question which has a party political content. The Barisan Sosialis should not say, "We want to see our question posed." The P.A.P. have not said that they want to see the question posed. What they are posing in Command Paper No. 33 is a decision of this Assembly. There is no P.A.P. question at all and there is no reason why the Barisan Sosialis should say that they want to have a Barisan Sosialis question posed in the referendum. Let us all forget our party politics in this matter of grave importance to the public. Let us sink our political differences and find the best possible solution for the people of Singapore, and after that let us have it out in this Assembly, and if the Opposition could contain their impatience and they desire to see the end of the P.A.P. until after that date, then I could say that the Opposition would be a very responsible Opposition. Let us not try and confuse the electorate on a matter on which they have to seek our guidance. Now, Sir, as to the questions to be posed. There is no necessity for any group in this Assembly to try and describe the other party as dishonest - as a party that is out to perpetrate a fraud on the people. If the questions have been fully debated and accepted by the Assembly, then it is for each and every political Party to go out to the masses, conduct referendum meetings and explain to the people in a straightforward, honest way the form of closer association that the political Party stands for. No one in this House would imagine that the Barisan Sosialis would be holding referendum meetings to try and persuade the people to accept Command Paper 33. But if they feel that their idea of closer association is complete and unconditional merger, then they are free to explain their stand to the electorate and get the electorate to vote with them. Sir, in all these discussions on the form of closer association, let us, as responsible representatives of the people in this House, be most conscious of the fact that we have to consider the views of the other party, that is, the Government of the Federation of Malaya, and whatever utterances we may make, let us be very conscious of the grave responsibility that is thrust upon us. Let us not make it more difficult for the Government to carry out the wishes of the electorate. Sir, I will move my amendment later on, but there is a point that the Member for Queenstown has brought up in his very lengthy speech. He confuses himself - he contradicts himself. He says, "Before they can express their choice, that is to say, before the electorate can give their vote, on the questions posed to them, they must first be consulted." Sir, a referendum is a form of consultation of the electorate. Perhaps, Sir, he does not know what he has been reading since that masterpiece could not have been written by him. Sir, then he keeps on playing the old line - again general election, general election, general election. I say to them again, forget the general election. If they are so keen to prove their worth, to prove that they are the staunch champions in the Opposition, go out, come back, and I shall take my hat off to them.

That is it.

If they ever come back. Sir, he says again that merger has been rejected by the people of Anson. By that I think he means that because the P.A.P. was not returned and the Member for Anson was returned, the merger proposal of the Government had been rejected by the people of Anson. I do not think it is a right conclusion. If, as he is very fond of saying, the S.P.A. Alliance and the P.A.P. are on the same side of the fence on this question of merger, and if he were to take the trouble to add up the votes of the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. Alliance candidates, he would find that they are more than the votes of the Anson candidate. Sir, we cannot do what we like on this very grave issue. I know the P.A.P. are very fond of trying to knock out the Barisan and doing all they can to make use of this merger referendum as a means of delivering the knock-out blow. And the Barisan is so keen to have a one-question referendum to knock out the P.A.P. In this mutual desire of wanting to knock out each other, let them remember that they must not try to knock out the interests of the people of Singapore. Three questions - the two questions moved by the Prime Minister and the amendment to be proposed by me - will be posed in the referendum, and in the same way as the referendum in Newfoundland was conducted. Therefore, there is this precedent which we can follow. But the questions posed in the Newfoundland referendum were questions that had a bearing on the next constitutional step - the advance that was sought for Newfoundland. So, in the same way, when we pose all possible questions for closer association with the Federation of Malaya, the electorate can choose one form and reject the rest. It is silly to suggest, as has been suggested by the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown - they seem to echo each other - that the voter must have the right to say "Yes" or "No". "Yes" or "No" to three questions? If you get two "Yeses" and one "No", what is the answer? You get no answer at all. The electorate can have their choice and if, as the Barisan believe, the people of Singapore do not like Command Paper 33, surely they will have every opportunity to vote for a form of closer association that is not Command Paper 33. Sir, I would like to repeat my appeal to this House again on this very important issue which means life and death to the people of Singapore. Let us sink our party differences. Let us rise above them. Put our heads together and find the best solution for the people of Singapore.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are having a debate ranging over the three questions contained in the motion. First, I will touch on the motion by the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, when concluding his speech a little while ago, said that any person who had correct thoughts would not doubt the motion moved by him; but I will say that anyone whose thoughts are correct and who has right thinking, will not propose such a motion as he has. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us now talk about the few points raised by the Prime Minister. He said that the Barisan Sosialis had made a mistake by suggesting a type of merger based on the Penang and Malacca type. I would like to say that the Barisan Sosialis had never made a mistake. The Barisan Sosialis proposed a merger such as the Penang and Malacca type with certain conditions, but the Prime Minister used to quote out of context and distort facts. So if any person has made any mistake, it is the P.A.P., because the P.A.P. Government want to deal the Barisan Sosialis a blow; but because the P.A.P. cannot get any excuse, they are now raising the Communist bogey. The Prime Minister dare not pose one question to the people for a decision. This is because the P.A.P. have no courage and also because the Prime Minister has no confidence in his White Paper on merger. The second point is that the Prime Minister in his speech many times quoted the speeches made by other people and so created a lot of controversy. That is improper. He should not have done so. He also in the course of his speech quoted various examples in other countries where referenda were held. I feel that by quoting examples from other countries on national referenda, he could not have realised what is now before us here. He said that what he had been advocating was something with precedents. He said that other people may no be familiar with the precedents in other countries; but I am sure that in other countries the referendum law has never provided such a provision as deeming blank votes and uncertain votes to be in support of the Government's proposition. The Prime Minister also said that the White Paper merger proposals were very good and alleged that the other type of merger proposition was very bad. He said that the Government's merger proposals included autonomy in labour and education. But I have some doubts. If the Government is so confident that its White Paper on merger is so very good, why does it dare not put it to the people for a decision? The Prime Minister also said that the National Referendum Bill was very logical and would meet the present situation. But I would say that this type or logic must be the P.A.P. type of logic. What he said about meeting the present situation I think means that it must be meeting the P.A.P. situation at the moment, because if the P.A.P. does not go through with merger, its life will not be long. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now talk about why the Prime Minister has moved this motion. I would like to talk about the motives and the plot of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, these two points are worth studying. Let me expound to you slowly. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can now see very clearly that the National Referendum Bill, which was passed last week in this House, is one that cannot be seen by anyone, because it is undomocratic and unreasonable. It is full of arbitrary provisions. There are many things in it more Fascist than the Fascists and more Hitler than Hitler, but this Bill has been barbarously passed by the Government. The Party in power has never seriously taken the views of the Opposition Parties. It has always closed its ears to the propositions and views of the Opposition Parties. I have many doubts about the motion of the Prime Minister. If only the views of the Government and the Opposition Parties can be unified, all the difficulties can be resolved. But to arrive at any agreement with the Government is not possible. I am sure of it. Even the Prime Minister knows this to be so. But Mr Speaker, Sir, since the facts are as what I have said, why does the Prime Minister introduce his motion? It is worth our study here. Judging from the appearance of the motion, it looks like the type of request the Barisan Sosialis has asked for, because the Government has said that it will put the Barisan Sosialis request to be framed in the question. Now he has introduced a motion incorporating a type of motion supposedly to represent the Barisan Sosialis request. Let us ask whether it represents the Barisan Sosialis' request. I say it does not. The matter is not so simple as that. I say the Barisan Sosialis has many reasonable requests and demands. Why are all those requests and demands being objected to and rejected by the Government? For instance, the Barisan Sosialis said there should be only one question in this. The national referendum should provide that there should be only one question for the people to decide, whether they would accept or reject the Government's White Paper on merger. Another request by the Barisan Sosialis was that any blank votes and uncertain votes should not be construed as those supporting any side, but the Government could not accept it. Mr Speaker, Sir, according to what we have been debating on the National Referendum Bill last week, the Government has forgotten the interests of the people of Singapore. What the Government is now looking after and is caring for is its own interest. It will not care for anything else. Even when the Barisan Sosialis has been criticising the Government and exposing its true character, the Government still breathes and is very thick-skinned. It will not feel any remorse or any shame. I would like to point out that the Government's motion now under consideration is not honest and not reasonable. The Prime Minister has always prided himself on being a very clever person. But at the Students' Forum organised by the University Students Union, when asked a question by Mr Tommy Koh, he could not answer it. At that moment, he said that only a foolish person would ask such a foolish question to get a foolish answer. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the motion by the Prime Minister is, of course, not meant to arrive at a foolish conclusion. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me talk about the Prime Minister's motion now under consideration. It appears that the Prime Minister is rather generous in moving this motion and letting the Assembly discuss it. But there are ulterior motives behind it. All the actions and measures taken by the P.A.P. are very undemocratic, and yet it tries to cover itself and put up a facade of democracy. The more it pretends, the more it becomes unseemly, and the more it exposes itself. This motion of the Prime Minister shows that the Government is having a guilty conscience. Why? The reason is very simple. Firstly, the Prime Minister knows that the National Referendum Bill is not popular with the people. The people do not like it. It should have provided for the people to decide on whether they want or do not want the Government's White Paper on merger; and it should have been drafted in such a way as to achieve that purpose. The Government has tried to confuse the issue in the National Referendum Bill. Although by passing the Bill it could pose two questions, it knows it is doing it by sheer strength of compulsion. It knows that its White Paper on merger will not be acceptable to the people. It had said that this Bill was a general Referendum Bill, but later on it changed its mind and said that it could be a specific one. After holding the national referendum, the Bill would be repealed. Now, this proves that the Government has been wrong in the past. Being a lawyer, the Prime Minister dare not accept the fact that the Government or himself has been wrong. He has only accepted part of the mistake, and that shows his cowardice. He has said in the past that the Government would let the people decide the question on the White Paper on merger. He has said that the people could mark an X against the column marked "yes" if they accept the question. The people could also mark an X against the column "no" to show that they reject it. It is obvious that the question should be so framed as to ask the people whether they want or reject the Government's White Paper merger proposals. The Prime Minister has boasted that he would ask the people, but now the situation has changed because the Government have been exposed by the Opposition Parties and the Prime Minister can find no way to save his Government from the present embarrassment. He is a very eloquent orator but today he cannot even give a reason or an argument to substantiate his Party's stand on the propositions. In spite of his eloquence, and in spite of the White Paper being in black type, he cannot blind the people. However much he tries to deceive the people he will not succeed. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can clearly see that the Government are gradually trying to find a way out from their present predicament. The Government have committed an unforgivable crime by creating some undemocratic provisions in the National Referendum Bill. Now the P.A.P. are experiencing a guilty conscience. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the reports in today's newspapers we can see a statement issued by the Political Bureau of the P.A.P. which says that the P.A.P. cannot withstand the pressure coming from all quarters. The P.A.P. are trying to go all out to convince the people of the necessity of clause 29, so that they can have a scapegoat. Mr Speaker. Sir, let me in this House show you how irresponsible the P.A.P. are by trying to push their mistakes on to others. This is a copy of the Sin Chew Jit Poh of today, local page No. 1, which contains this report of the statement issued by the Political Bureau saying that the provisions regarding blank votes and uncertain votes ---

Order. I do hope that the hon. Lady is not going back to clause 29. We have finished with clause 29. It has been passed and written into the Bill. We are now discussing what questions will be asked on this referendum. I cannot see how the merits of clause 29 have anything to do with this motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I would like to point out is this. At the present juncture the Government has made a mistake and is trying to get a scapegoat to cover up its mistake. Just like this motion, it is a means by which the Government tries to find a scapegoat for the mistakes it has made. When this motion was tabled by the Prime Minister, he knew it would be passed. So why should such a motion be brought forward? It is very simple. If the question should come before the House for debate, then the Prime Minister will say later on that this is a question that has been decided on by the Assembly and that he has nothing to do with it.

There is no logic.

(In Mandarin): This is the cunning logic of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me deal with the motion of the Prime Minister. When moving it, he said "That this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories." Mr Speaker, Sir, this so-called "inevitable reunification", especially the word "inevitable". I would say, at the present juncture, that the people of Singapore, in the absence of a better term for "merger", can avoid a merger. What is inevitable is actually inevitable to the P.A.P. Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving his motion the Prime Minister brought out two alternatives. The first is the constitutional arrangements set out in the White Paper giving Singapore autonomy in education and labour. On the White Paper merger proposals we have had a very lengthy debate in this House and there is no need for me to repeat the arguments, but --- [Interruption] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Delta says that although I say I do not want to repeat the arguments. I have repeated them many times. This is the most difficult thing - we tell them one, two, three, four times, and still they do not understand what we tell them! As though we are talking to cows who cannot understand what we say. We are now in a position in which scholars talk reason to soldiers who cannot understand reason at all. That is the true position in any case. If we do not speak our minds, then we do not discharge our duty. If the Government wants to force this motion through, then it has to shoulder the whole responsibility.

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. The Member for Stamford says that those who are listening to her are cows. The Speaker is listening to her. Does it mean that the Speaker is a cow?

Yes. The Member for Delta is right. I have always said that Members of this Assembly should not be referred to as animals of any kind whatsoever, be they cows or bulls.

(In Mandarin):Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring to the Members of the Government when I used the term, "when we were listening to the cows."

I have ruled that out. Even if the Lady is polite enough to say that she did not include the Speaker, she must still not call Members of the Assembly cows.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I bow to your ruling. The Prime Minister has moved this motion on the White Paper for a decision of the people. He mentions autonomy in education and labour. It is, I say, humbug. The people are very clear about it. So, on the second alternative, I would say that it is a very strange alternative to us. More so to the people outside this House. We in this House have not debated the second alternative. We do not know the situation and conditions in the various States in the Federation. The people outside this House will be even more ignorant. So this second alternative is very frightening and terrible. The Member for Cairnhill said just a few moments ago that if after merger - Mr Speaker, Sir, hoon chang ---

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, hoon chang means "damn you". Are these two expressions parliamentary in this House? Just now the Member for Stamford mentioned hoon chang. She interjected with the expression hoon chang?

Will the Member please repeat that? I will get it from the interpreter eventually. Is it hoon chang?

(In Mandarin): Is the expression, "To hell with you," parliamentary in this House?

So now I know that hoon chang means "to hell with you". If it is "to hell with you", I do not know whether it is offensive. If it is offensive, then, of course, it must be withdrawn. The Parliamentary Secretary has objected and, therefore, I must ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that expression hoon chang.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, this expression is only applicable to a person who feels offended; then he will raise objection to it.

The Lady must not debate with the Chair now. The Chair has asked her to withdraw the expression as being offensive at least to one Member of this Assembly. Therefore, she must withdraw it without debating it

On a point of order. Sir.

Just one second. I have just dealt with a point of order. Let the Lady withdraw that expression first.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in that case, I withdraw the expression. Mr Speaker, Sir ---

(In Mandarin): The Member did not withdraw the expression.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary feel sleepy? Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that to talk is just like to walk. If there is anything dirty, you must sweep it away. If the Government Benches want to interject, then I feel that it should be very unsatisfactory to me. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was dealing with the second alternative which the Government intends to pose to the people. I will say that this is not in keeping with procedure, because this second alternative has not been debated in this House. It has no foundation on which the people can make their decision as to whether it is good or bad. However, from our understanding, these two questions are equally bad. They are just like Government holding a gun and asking the people, "Do you want to live or do you want to die?" Mr Speaker, let me talk about the motion of the Opposition. I feel that the first motion is just like a test stone. If the merger proposals are to be likened to gold, then it should not be afraid of fire. If the Government feels that the White Paper merger proposals are good, then it should accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. The second motion tabled by the Opposition is moved to condemn the Government for distorting the stand of the Opposition. I feel that a responsible Government should not distort the stand of other people. By so doing, it is not acting responsibly. It will be an irresponsible Government. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me make use of the words uttered by the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister to describe the motion of the Prime Minister. I feel that the Political Secretary uttered a sentence which is very appropriate for the description of the motion in the name of the Prime Minister. He said this in his third talk over Radio Singapore. This is reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of Tuesday, 12th June, at page 5. What he said reads as follows: "To treat a dead horse as a live horse and give it treatment." I feel that the motion of the Prime Minister is to try and treat a dead horse as a live horse, because the political future of the Government has gone bankrupt. On the day when this National Referendum Bill was passed, the Government was dead. As far as the political future is concerned, the Prime Minister is dictatorial and undemocratic. He wants to pose two unacceptable questions to the people. He wants to have these questions debated in this House in order to redeem himself from the bad name he has acquired by committing crimes in the name of democracy. I will say this motion will not help the Government in any way to rejuvenate or revive the political life of the Party. Before I conclude my speech, I will say that I strongly oppose the motion moved by the Prime Minister. I am in full and complete support of the motion of the Opposition.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not prepared to make a lengthy speech in this House because the time for debate is limited. At the same time, the Members of the Opposition have day in and day out been repeating their old tunes without producing any new points of argument. Just now the Member for Queenstown brought forward a few strange arguments. I am therefore taking this opportunity of rebutting him. First, he said that we on the Government side are selling out the people. I do not understand his interpretation of the word "sell-out". We have explained very clearly to the people of Singapore that the White Paper merger proposals are not at all detrimental to the interests of the people here. The citizenship of the Chinese population in Singapore is still being retained. At the same time, we are to retain our autonomy in education and labour. Therefore, I cannot see any meaning in the words "selling out". The second point I wish to raise is this. The Member for Queenstown has repeatedly urged that we should go back to the masses for a general election. I remember, Sir, that after we were defeated in the Hong Lim by-election and when we were discussing whether or not we should resign from the Government, he insisted that we should stay on in the Government. This is because they were afraid of losing the posts of Parliamentary Secretary. We explained at that time our failure in the Hong Lim by-election. At that time we did not see any possibility of realising the merger proposals of the P.A.P. We now see that there is a possibility of the merger proposals being realised. At that time, those ex-Parliamentary Secretaries were ambitious to become Ministers or even Prime Minister and take over the government. They did not say that they wanted to resign. Instead of that, they said, "Now you resign and we will take over the government." The reason for the split in the P.A.P. is partly due to the personal ambition of a certain group of people and partly due to their objection to merger. The Member for Queenstown said that the P.A.P. did not get a mandate from the people in the June 1959 elections in support of the merger proposals. Meanwhile, he has repeatedly challenged us to a general election. Let me remind him that prior to the general elections he had signed an undertaking with the P.A.P. This undertaking must be signed by every P.A.P. candidate who contested the general election. In this undertaking they said they would abide by the policy as contained in the Party's Fourth Anniversary Celebration Souvenir. I believe the people of Singapore and even the people of Malaya know that the ultimate objective of the P.A.P. is to fight for a merger of the two territories and to achieve the independence of Singapore through merger with the Federation of Malaya. In this undertaking, it was also stated that if any Member should resign or was expelled from the Party, he should also resign his seat in the Assembly. If they are manly enough, they should have kept their promise. If I signed this undertaking I would not remain [Interruption.] ---

Order. The Member for Queenstown is probably feeling the strain of the late hours, I suppose. He has been interjecting every five minutes, even less than that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I said just now that if I signed that undertaking and if I left the P.A.P., I would not remain in this House. Yet they claimed that they would keep up [Interruption.]

Order. If the Barisan Sosialis Members will not have any respect for the Chair's ruling. I will have to take very serious action against them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the 13 Members who left the P.A.P. were courageous enough, they should have resigned --- [Interruption.]

Order. I am addressing my remarks to the Member for Jalan Kayu. This is Standing Order No. 55: `The Speaker or the Chairman shall order any Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Assembly during the remainder of that day's sitting;'. So if the Member for Jalan Kayu ignores the directions of the Chair, he will be proceeded with under Standing Order No. 55.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members from the Opposition side often interjected because what I had pointed out is like a pin which pierces through their heart. Therefore. I hope that they will not dare to ask for a general election. If they were courageous enough they should have resigned by themselves and then we would send some people to stand as candidates and compete with them. Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown has said that we have forgotten our Five-year Development Plan. If the Members of the Barisan Sosialis are not prejudiced, they will see that there are new houses coming up all over Singapore. The housing problem, if left to the previous colonial government, would not have been solved for the next 30 years.

Order. I was just wondering how that is relevant to the motion. Let us come back to the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was replying to the Member for Queenstown who said that we had forgotten our Five-Year Development Plan. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. Government is a realistic Government. We are not prepared to day-dream. We are conscious of the present circumstances in Malaya, and in this context we have brought about this Cmd. Paper 33. This proves that we are really sincere in fulfilling the wishes of the people of the two territories in the reunification of Singapore and Malaya. 10.49 p.m.

But what we are concerned with is not theory, nor are we prepared to be the slaves of any ideologies or jams. What we are concerned with is the basic livelihood of the people. We have nearly solved the problem of housing in Singapore. Now we hope, through merger, we can solve the problems of the people in respect of clothing and food. Since our declaration of the merger of Singapore and Malaya, the Barisan Sosialis and other politicians have openly declared their anti-merger stand. They are only stooges of the Malayan Communists. We are not prepared to be the slaves of any political ideology. We maintain that in the context of Malaya at this moment, only Cmd. Paper 33 can bring about the reunification of the two territories in a realistic way. Yet the Barisan Sosialis do not stick to what they say because they dare not state openly their anti-merger stand. Therefore, they introduce many proposals which cannot be fulfilled under the present circumstances. I understand even the Chinese born in the Federation of Malaya, if their parents were not Federation-born, will have to apply for Federation citizenship. Under these circumstances, we cannot expect the leaders across the causeway, that means these leaders who are mostly non-Chinese, to accept automatic conversion of citizenship for the 624,000 Chinese in Singapore. If that is practicable in the present circumstances, then we need not have to labour ourselves at this moment. That is to say, in the present context the purpose of this demand is to try to embarrass the merger proposals. Any person who is conscientious, cool, peaceful and sober, will be able to understand that, in the present circumstances, the introduction of this demand cannot be acceptable. Those who can use their brains will be able to understand that the demand brought forward by the Barisan Sosialis has one motive, that is, to block the way for merger. Let us look at the amendment by the Member for Queenstown. After some scrutiny we can understand that its purpose is to try to show that the people of Singapore do not want merger, because they want the people to say only yes or no. By this they hope the P.A.P. Government will ask the people of Singapore whether they will accept the White Paper on merger, that is to say, they hope by that they can incite the general public to oppose the White Paper merger. If the White Paper on merger is defeated then there will be no merger. That is a passive way out. It is not a positive way out. They think that if the White Paper on merger is defeated, then there will be no merger. But everybody should know that merger and Malaysia are not things which any politician can block. If we examine the situation in Singapore in a cool, calm and sober way, we can realise that when Malaysia is established and if Singapore is not part of it, then Singapore will be isolated. Then Singapore will be in a difficult position and will find it very difficult to resolve the problem of earning a livelihood and other matters. On this we have not seen any concrete suggestions or plans from the Barisan Sosialis. During the course of the debate, there was only shouting, yelling, and levelling of invectives. Even when we on this side of the House wanted to make speeches, they tried to prevent us from making speeches. That shows their attitude towards tackling the problems before us. When his amendment is defeated, I am sure the Member for Queenstown will bring up another amendment which will be to request that the 624,000 citizens of Singapore would automatically become Federal citizens. Its purpose, we all know, is to thwart the merger plan. The consequences of that will be that Singapore will be isolated from the Federation of Malaya. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, about the second amendment, I am not prepared to touched on it at the moment because I would like to see what grand arguments the Member for Anson will be advancing. Touching upon the speech made by the Member for Anson just now, it seems that I have been watching an interesting exhibition by him because I have not much opportunity to see him put up such a grand performance when he was gesticulating with all kinds of vivid demonstrations, rather dramatic in his own way, to attract his audience. But I can recollect that he pointed out that Singapore should be one of the component States of the Federation and be like any one of the present States of the Federation, and enjoy equal rights as any one of the States of the Federation. But he admitted that he did not know that there could be so many difficulties and complexities in carrying out constitutional arrangements. He confessed it frankly. And the same with the Barisan Sosialis when they demanded that Singapore should be merged on a certain basis. Later when they found that they were really in the position of being wrong and embarrassed and in a predicament, they advanced another claim saying that the citizens of Singapore should automatically become Federal citizens. The Member for Anson also clearly expressed the wish that merger should be delayed for as long as possible. This is similar to the Barisan's plot, i.e. when the merger proposals were first aired, members of the Barisan Sosialis were going round everywhere trying to persuade the people to oppose merger. Supporters of the Barisan Sosialis kept on asking the people, why did they want merger? They argued with the leadership of the P.A.P. against merger. From that time onwards, we realised that they were trying to plot against merger openly. In public they declare that they are in support of merger, but secretly I think that anyone who comes to know them will know that they are, in fact, opposed to merger. The second amendment proposed by them calls for the automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens. I hope that when the Member for Anson moves his amendment he will tell us whether he agrees that the education policy of Singapore should keep in line with the Rahim Talib education policy, and whether he is prepared to let autonomy in education and labour be handed over to the control of the Central Government. I would also like to ask him whether he is prepared to accept any measures put out by the Central Government, for instance, the 4 to 1 ratio of Malays to non-Malays in civil service. You see, you cannot have the best of two worlds. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. That is why if you want complete merger, you cannot at the same time make your own demands. And so by putting out such propositions which are unacceptable to the Federation, they are thwarting merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, the problems facing Singapore are mostly connected with the livelihood of the people. The main task of the P.A.P. is to safeguard the interests of the people. We do not intend to be doctrinaires. We do not want to become slaves to any "isms" without regard to our practical situation. As the Prime Minister has said, we will not become the pawns or stooges of the Malayan Communist Party. According to the present objective circumstances, the proposals as contained in the White Paper on merger are the ones which can resolve the problems of the livelihood of the people. They can find a way out for the people. 11.07 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Opposition Parties have introduced an amendment from which we can see their vicious plot. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to the people of Singapore, the most important thing is merger, but the Opposition Parties have all along been repeating their platitudes and attacking the P.A.P. merger proposals. This action is rather vicious. Mr Deputy Speaker, from the amendment before us we can see something vicious behind it. Since the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has taken part in radio forums, we know that they wanted a Penang or Malacca type of merger. After this type of merger was aired, the Barisan Sosialis leadership thought that they were more capable and so began talking about how useful they had been in their branches by conducting night classes in the trade unions. They also talked about the good things about the Penang and Malacca type of merger. The proposal for the Penang and Malacca type of merger at that time seemed to be a good one. But then the Member for Stamford said that genuine gold dreads no fire. Let me ask: how long can their proposed Penang and Malacca type of merger stand the test of fire? It is only after a few months that we see that their type of merger cannot stand this test. And so they now turn round and deny that they have made such a proposition. From the speeches made by the Barisan Members here, we can see that the contents are exactly the same. There are no fresh arguments. They are frying the rice over and ever again. This is a most apt description for them. Why do they oppose our putting their type of merger as one of the questions for the people to decide? I think the reasons are that, first and foremost, they are opposed to merger. If there is any form of merger which is acceptable by the people, then it will not be good to the Communists and their stooges. And if the people accept one of the merger forms, then the true motive of the Barisan Sosialis will be exposed. In fact, they do not want merger. The next reason is that if the people accepted the type of merger based on the Penang and Malacca type, then the Barisan Sosialis would be afraid of the consequences because their type of merger would, in fact, sell out Chinese education and autonomy in labour and the citizenship of about 300,000 Singapore citizens. What is their aim? I think we know they only want full internal self-government. That is what they have been talking about in the trade unions and their night classes and in other organisations under their control. What is meant by full internal self-government? What does it mean? It means that the Barisan Sosialis will be playing together with the colonialists to enslave the people. Full internal self-government will mean that the colonialists will still be able to stay in Singapore and to govern Singapore. Then how can this type of government bring good to the people? They have been talking about doing good things for the people. When they say they want to serve the people, they actually mean to cheat them. When they talk about serving the people, they actually mean that they want to sell out the people. That is the true motive for their activities in opposing merger. From their talks and deeds we can see their fundamental objectives. Now, why do the P.A.P. want to struggle hard in order to secure merger for all? Are we doing this for our individual interests? No. Our starting point is always the people. That is, we do things for the good of the people and in their interest. The livelihood of the people has been much improved under the P.A.P. Government. It is not enough just to build a few roads, put up street lamps or a few houses. If we want to have a really socialist country, we should first have a united Malaya. That is why we must have merger now.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, facing the people of Singapore today are the constitutional arrangements for their future. According to the plan of the P.A.P. last year, that was their plan for the future constitutional arrangements. These constitutional arrangements which are now being advocated by our Prime Minister are embodied in the White Paper on merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before the Prime Minister reached agreement with the Federation Government, we had his assurance that the merger between Singapore and the Federation had been considered by a Working Party. Its Report would be put to the people for their decision as to whether or not they accept the White Paper merger proposals. If the people do not accept, they can put a cross in the square for "no", and if they agree, they can put a cross in the square for "yes". According to the argument of the Minister for Finance, the people will say "yes". If that is the case, the Government should pose only one question as to whether the people want the White Paper on merger or not. Do they have the guts [Interruption] ---

Order. If the Minister for Finance wishes to rise on any point, the Member for Pasir Panjang will naturally give way. If both sides of the House start interjecting in Chinese, then the Chairman will not be able to follow up!

I beg your pardon.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not like to deal with these points now. I will deal with them later on. Now I would like to speak on the motion moved by the Prime Minister. The original motion of the Prime Minister was to consult the people on the constitutional arrangements in respect of two or three alternatives for the choice of the people. The first choice was the White Paper on merger. The second alternative was a complete and unconditional merger with Singapore as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya. The third alternative was to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to the first alternative, the people of Singapore already know clearly the contents of the White Paper. They will exercise their political rights accordingly ---

Order. To put the record straight, the Prime Minister's motion contains two alternatives. The third alternative is moved as an amendment by the Member for Cairnhill, which amendment the Government has indicated it will accept.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is so. The third alternative is an amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill and it has now been accepted by the Government. Therefore, I am going to deal with it as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will take the first alternative and the third alternative. With regard to the third alternative, the people of Singapore do not know what will be the terms of this proposal. The second alternative will be an unconditional and complete merger, that is, complete merger on an equal basis with the other eleven States. Does it mean that Singapore will become the twelfth State of the Federation of Malaya, and after that all the 624,000 citizens of Singapore can automatically become Federal citizens? Does it also mean that there will be proportional representation in the Central Parliament? That is, we will have at least 25 seats in the Central Parliament? With regard to automatic conversion of citizenship for all Singapore citizens and proportional representation in the Central Parliament, can the 624,000 citizens of Singapore share a common political life with the other citizens? Can they also share a common economic life with the other Federal citizens? The Minister for Finance says yes. He is trying to confuse and mislead the people. What we want is to have the 624.000 citizens of Singapore automatically becoming Federal citizens on merger. Have you forgotten the interests of the people of Singapore? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are to have a proper distribution of land. That is to say, Singapore citizens and Federal citizens can enjoy the same rights. But all these points were not made clear by the Prime Minister when he moved his motion. The other point - this is very important - is the second alternative. He did not point out to this House clearly what will be the proper position and as a result the people are confused. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, concerning the third alternative, nobody knows what the terms of this kind of merger will be, especially when Singapore and the Federation Government have not come to any agreement. Furthermore, there has been no report in this House concerning this third alternative. We can see that the motion of the Prime Minister has been moved in order to mislead the people of Singapore. It is something abstract and intangible. Mr Deputy Speaker, not only are we ourselves confused about the terms of the third alternative, but the people of Singapore are also confused. They are not clear about it. They do not know the terms because the Cobbold Report has not been published. Up till now we do not know what are the recommendations or the contents of this Report. We do not know what will be the terms given to the Borneo territories. Therefore, it is improper for anybody to bring up this third alternative at this present juncture. The P.A.P. Government and their leaders are the most wonderful distortionists in the world. They are in full control of the national publicity machinery. They have control over the Press. And they have a ruling to the newspapers in our State that more space should be given to the statements of the Ministers and that the statements of the Opposition should be reduced.

(In Malay): Point of order. I would like to know what all this has got to do with the motion under discussion?

I am waiting for the Member for Pasir Panjang to finish his speech on this particular point. Mr Tee Kim Leng.

(In Mandarin): We know that the P.A.P. is in full control of the entire publicity machinery to mislead the people of Singapore, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you an example and show how wonderful the leaders of the P.A.P. are as distortionists. For example, if the Barisan Sosialis were to say that the pencils used in this House should be red or blue, then the P.A.P. would turn round and distort and say that we want blue and red pencils for the painting of the walls in this House. Therefore, we want to condemn the Government for distorting our stand on merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis said last year in the House, when the debate on merger was in progress ---

Order. The Member for Moulmein (Mr Lin You Eng) should know that the reading of newspapers and books in this Chamber is against the Standing Orders.

(In Mandarin): At that time, we moved a motion to the effect that in the event of reunification between Singapore and the Federation, Singapore should enter the Federation as the twelfth State and with its 624,000 citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens and with proportional representation in the Central Parliament. Before the motion of the Barisan Sosialis at that time, we also issued a statement with regard to our stand on merger between Singapore and the Federation. This was made on the 28th of August, 1961. In this statement it was clearly and categorically pointed out what our stand on merger was and what the tasks ahead should be. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our policy statement said, first, we should immediately have complete and genuine merger so that Singapore will enter as a State in the Federation of Malaya on the basis of Penang and Malacca. Secondly, Singapore should enter into confederation with the Federation. The form of the first proposal would have many difficulties. The colonialists try to highlight the religious and racial differences among our people in order to carry on their colonial rule. If the representatives in the Federation can take concerted action with us, then we can bring about a true and genuine merger. In this case, we will do all we can to look after the interests of the people of Singapore in order that Singapore will enter the Federation as the twelfth State. That will mean that Singapore becomes part and parcel of the Federation of Malaya, so that Singapore citizens will automatically become Federal citizens and they will have proportionate representation in the Central Government in the Federation of Malaya. There should be a general election in Singapore to let the people have an open decision, so that we can get a mandate from the people to bring about a true and complete merger. But now the Federation Government wants to find out from us whether we are prepared to persuade the people to have Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State before 1963 in a full and complete merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that was the basic stand of the Barisan Sosialis on merger. But the P.A.P. Government has all along been trying to distort our contention and stand, through Radio P.A.P. and through the Political Bureau of: the P.A.P. in distorting our stand, the P.A.P. has made many mistakes. These mistakes are also contained in the speech of the Prime Minister on the 25th of June, 1961. On the 25th of June, 1962, the Political Bureau of the P.A.P. issued a statement which reads as follows: `Now the P.A.P. are challenging us to put their contention of a complete merger for the people to decide in the referendum. Is that their true contention of merger?' What do they mean by this? Our true contention and stand on merger is to allow the people of Singapore to become citizens of the Federation. If we can put this into practice, then we shall go on our knees and thank God. From all this talk we know that our contention is correct and is in keeping with the desire of the people of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister said earlier on this evening in this House that "they could only talk about complete and unconditional merger." He said this in order to avoid the matter of the automatic conversion of citizenship. As a matter of fact, the Barisan Sosialis has in many policy statements mentioned automatic conversion of citizenship. The Prime Minister in his speech pointed out to the people of Singapore that automatic conversion of citizenship would be acceptable to the people of Singapore. Although knowing this full well, he is not going to fight for the interest of the people. 11.30 p.m.

Instead he will avoid the matter of citizenship and say nothing about it. He only wants to foist on the people the so-called complete and unconditional merger as a choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister himself knows that the automatic conversion of citizenship is very important to the people of Singapore. But why should he sell out the interests of the people in Singapore? Mr Speaker. Sir, from these view-points we know that the leaders of the P.A.P. are trying to distort the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. Here I would like to make a serious charge - that this behaviour of the P.A.P. is shameless. Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper on merger before it was passed in this House gave the P.A.P. leadership confidence. From the remarks of the Minister for Finance a few moments ago, it seems that the White Paper on merger is very good, and from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, we are told that the White Paper on merger is not a sell-out of the interests of the Chinese in Singapore. He also says that the White Paper on merger is the most suitable type of merger that can meet the present requirements of the people in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, from all this talk we know that the leadership of the P.A.P. have full confidence and complete faith in their White Paper on merger. So the P.A.P. Government should at the present day hand the White Paper on merger for a decision by the people by way of a national referendum. But in the motion moved by the Prime Minister, we can see that the leaders of the P.A.P. do not have confidence in the constitutional arrangements arrived at between the two Governments in Singapore and the Federation. How is it that they should have lost interest in their White Paper on merger? The facts are very clear. It is because the people of Singapore know very clearly that the White Paper on merger is not in keeping with their interests. So if the P.A.P. Government should pose only one question on the White Paper on merger for a decision of the people in the national referendum, then I believe most of the people in Singapore will reject it. If the P.A.P. should suffer such a defeat, then spiritually and morally speaking the Government have to resign. Mr Speaker, Sir, because their White Paper on merger is not acceptable to the people and will be rejected by them, that is why the P.A.P. Government have no guts to refer this matter alone to the people for a decision. So instead of referring this matter alone, they will bring up two or more questions for the decision of the people. As a matter of fact, of the present alternatives, the first is intangible. As the Minister for Finance said at the third forum over Radio Singapore, and as reported on the 1st of July, 1962, in the Sin Chew Jit Poh, there are two building contractors - one is known as Complete Merger Company and the other is known as the White Paper on Merger Company. Now the White Paper on Merger Company has built a house and asks, "Do you want to move into our house, the house of the White Paper on Merger Company?" But Mr Citizen has got to find out what the Complete Merger Company has done. Has it built any house yet? Mr Speaker, Sir, in the motion of the Prime Minister there are two alternatives. The first is the White Paper on merger, i.e. the White Paper on Merger Company as suggested by the Minister for Finance. According to the Minister, this White Paper on Merger Company has completed the construction of a house and it wants the citizens to move into it. The second is the alternative of the Prime Minister, i.e., in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya, there should be complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis with any of the other 11 States. That is taken to mean the Complete and Unconditional Merger Company as suggested by the Minister for Finance in a radio forum. The Complete and Unconditional Merger Company has not put up any house and has not drawn up any plans to build a house. That is the argument of the Minister for Finance. Now, the Government wants to put these two alternatives to the people: (1) with a house already completed, and (2) No. [interruption] That is what you said in the radio forum! Mr Speaker, the second alternative of the Government is to ask Mr Citizen to look for the master of the Complete Merger Company. So, in my opinion, this alternative regarding complete and unconditional merger should not be posed to the people for their selection because up to the present day the Government in Singapore have not consulted the Federation Government on this matter, and there has been no agreement reached between them on this second alternative. So how can they ask the people to make a choice? Now, supposing you say that the people want to move into this house supposed to be built by the Complete Merger Company. Where is the house? Mr Speaker, the question before us should be as the Minister for Finance has said, that is the house built by the White Paper on Merger Company, and The people should be asked whether they want to move into this particular house. That is to say, the White Paper on Merger should be given to the people for a decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, finally I rise to appeal to the leaders of the Government that they should keep the promises they have made. The Government should refer the White Paper on merger to the people for a decision in order to convince them that the P.A.P. Government is a responsible Government. So I see no reason whatsoever why the P.A.P. Government should forget about the promises they have made to the people. I hope that the Government could carry out their promise and pose the White Paper on merger to the people for a decision in the national referendum. They should not run away from their promise. Otherwise they are irresponsible.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate on the motion which has since been amended by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown. I at times felt surprised whether this hon. Member was day-dreaming, because some of the arguments put forward in his amendment were that when the elections were held in Singapore in 1959 it never occurred to the people of Singapore that they ever wished to merge with the Federation of Malaya. His ground was that if the people of Singapore wanted to merge they would then have voted for the S.P.A., because the S.P.A. then had merger on its platform; and yet it suffered a crushing defeat. The Member for Queenstown also said that the people of Singapore had no wish whatsoever to merge with the Federation of Malaya. This is directly contrary to the arguments which we often heard from the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis. It appeared that the people of Singapore had no wish for a merger. That is why I thought the Member for Queenstown had been day-dreaming, for surely it is not possible that the Member has forgotten that one of the items in the manifesto of the P.A.P. is as follows: to strive to achieve independence through merger with the Federation of Malaya! This is one of the platforms of the P.A.P. which won them the election. One of the foremost planks in our platform was to achieve independence through merger with the Federation of Malaya. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see earlier today the Member for Queenstown, as leader of the Barisan Sosialis, denying this. What does this all mean, if, in this matter, he is quite prepared to deny the facts? There is no doubt then that the people who really dilly-dally over this matter of merger are the people in the Barisan Sosialis. They first said that they preferred merger on terms similar to those of Penang and Malacca. Then they said that they had made a mistake over this, and afterwards they further said that their stand was that merger should be on an equal basis like any one of the 11 States of the Federation. This is no child's play. If you are tired, you rest a while. But politics is not as easy as that, particularly serious politics. If you are a trishaw rider or a motor-car driver, or if you are a father or a teacher, and you make a mistake which endangers you or your family, it does not matter very much. But if you as a leader of a political Party make a grave mistake, then the people at large would consequently suffer. Therefore, in our political efforts for the good of the people, we should not act like children playing a game of marbles. The matter before us is a national matter. By dilly-dallying and making mistakes every now and then, how can we expect to guarantee the safety of the people entrusted to us? I feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis should not be like the mother crab, in the Malay saying, teaching its little one to walk: She says, "Little one. you should walk forward," when in fact she herself walks sideways. The Barisan Sosialis want immediate automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens on merger. The question was asked whether we would have equal status and the right of government and so on. Various other questions were posed by them, most of which have escaped me. They want this and they want that. But let us pause and ask ourselves: are we prepared to accept all this? At least, one of the conditions for enabling anyone to stand as a candidate in future elections is the question of language, for Malay will subsequently be regarded and accepted as the sole language in the Federation. There is the education policy as embodied in the Rahman Talib Report -are we prepared to accept all that? These are the things which should be clear in our minds. There are several other problems which have to be squarely faced. Therefore, let us not ask, "What will we get as a result of merger? Will we get this or that?", when we ourselves have not answered what we ourselves are prepared to give in return. Ever since the debate on the question of merger took place, and ever since the White Paper proposals were discussed to date, I have never heard even once any Member of the Barisan Sosialis answering these very pertinent questions. They merely raised questions which are aimed at gaining them votes, such as: will we get automatic citizenship rights? Mr Speaker, Sir, in debating this matter, we on the Government side are firm in our stand. Ever since we posed the question of the White Paper proposals, we were prepared to face the people and explain to them the real contents of the White Paper proposals and to clarify the points raised therein.

Order. It is midnight.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at 12 o'clock midnight.