Hansard, 1962-07-10

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."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Order for Second Reading read. 2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's permission to signify his recommendation for this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, provided in section 83 that: `The President shall, once in each year, furnish to the Minister for presentation to the Legislative Assembly a report on the working of the provisions of this Ordinance relating to the Court, to arbitration and to the registration of collective agreements and of any other provisions of the Ordinance in relation to which he considers it appropriate to report, and in particular the extent to which the objects of the Ordinance have been achieved and any considerations or circumstances which have prevented or hindered the achievement of these objects.' Sir, the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court has submitted his report for the period 15th September, 1960, to 31st December, 1961, and this has been published in Paper S. 4 of 1962. In the course of his report, the President said (paragraph 33 of his Report): `A year of operation has shown that the Ordinance is in the main an effective Legislative measure. However, during the course of the Court's work it was discovered that some sections of the Ordinance could be amended to achieve greater clarity and to avoid certain anomalies arising out of its application.' Paragraph 34: `You are aware that as early as the 25th January, 1961, I suggested certain amendments to the Ordinance and that, at intervals, I consulted with your predecessor, with the State Advocate-General and, later, with the Minister for Law with a view to clarify and strengthen certain sections of the Ordinance and for the removal of anomalies.' Paragraph 35: `I was mainly concerned on the one hand, with the heavy burden of work, and on the other hand, with my desire to speed up proceedings. I also expressed certain views on the two panels of members, on representation before the Court, on the notification of trade disputes, the registration and certification of agreements, representation in negotiations and, at a later stage, on the review of cases. Paragraph 36: `Correspondence and discussions on these matters continued between the Court and the appropriate authority throughout the year, and I am satisfied that our discussions were most fruitful.' Paragraph 37: `The Minister for Law, with your concurrence, early in 1962, is to suggest to the Legislative Assembly certain amendments to the Ordinance.' Paragraph 38: `I am aware of the nature of the amendments. They cover nearly all points on which I sought clarification during the year.' Sir, this Bill has been drafted on the representations of the President and has been agreed to with him. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the setting up of a second Industrial Arbitration Court to deal with the increasing work of the Court. This has been considered necessary, not only because of the disputes, which have been referred to the Court for arbitration, but also because of the large number of collective agreements presented for certification. Clause 2 of the Bill amends the definition of "Court" and the definition of "President" to provide for the setting up of more than one Court and the appointment of a Deputy President. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the appointment of a Deputy President. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the remuneration and allowances payable to him and gives him the same protection and immunities in the performance of his functions and duties as the President. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that for the purpose of constituting the employee panel for the Court, the Minister may invite nominations from trade unions of employees instead of from the Singapore Trade Union Congress, which has ceased to exist. The members of the Court will be required to take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath. This is provided in clause 6. Clause 7 of the Bill will enable the Minister to intervene and direct a compulsory conference in all cases of trade disputes. The power of certification of collective agreements is proposed to be given to the Court. But for this purpose the Court is to consist of the President. Clauses 8 to 14 of the Bill provide for this. The purpose of this is to emphasise that the act of certification is the act of the Court and to equate the status of a collective agreement to that of an award. It will also enable proceedings to be taken to punish persons who are guilty of offences against the Court or contempt against the Court as provided in sections 65 and 66 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Court is given power to refuse to certify a collective agreement if it is of opinion that the memorandum of agreement does not set out satisfactorily or adequately the terms of the collective agreement between the parties. The Bill further provides that it will be an offence for the person or a trade union to fail or neglect to bring a collective agreement or any of the terms of such agreement to the notice of the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance, or to deliver to the Registrar a memorandum which does not contain all the terms of the collective agreement. It is also made an offence for a person or a trade union to enter into a collective agreement, which is specified to continue in force for less than eighteen months, or more than three years, and which cannot be registered under the provisions of the Ordinance. The purpose of these amendments is to provide that all collective agreements shall comply with the provisions of the Ordinance and shall be registered under the Ordinance. Clause 11 of the Bill makes it an offence for a person or trade union to enter into negotiations in relation to industrial matters otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The purpose of this is to ensure that all negotiations relating to industrial matters are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The definition of "industrial matters" has been amended so as to exclude individual agreements or contracts of service between employer and employee relating to the employment or terms of employment of such employee. This is provided for in clause 2. The prohibition against representations and negotiations is extended to all trade disputes. This is provided for in clause 10. Clause 12 of the Bill provides that referees may be appointed only from persons included in the list of names maintained by the Minister. It also provides for an appeal from the decision of the referee to the Court. Clause 13 provides that no award or decision or order of the Court or the President or a referee shall be challenged or be subject to review by any court. The present position under which the decision of referees may be challenged in court, with the result that costs might be awarded against the referees, has created difficulties as referees who have been nominated have refused to serve. The Bill has been referred to the Bar Committee, but I regret to say that there are certain matters on which there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the functions of the court, with the result that certain provisions of the Bill have not been approved by the Bar Committee. The purpose of the Industrial Arbitration Court is not to decide disputed questions of law, but to register collective agreements which are made between the parties or to make agreements for employers and employees when they cannot reach agreement on their own account. It cannot therefore be treated like an ordinary court of justice and it is in recognition of this fact that the Ordinance provides that the Court shall not be bound to act in a formal manner or be bound by the Evidence Ordinance, but shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms. It is for this reason, too, that legal representation is restricted. It will be disastrous if the work of the Court could be delayed by arguments on legal technicalities or questions of law. The Ordinance itself provides for a summary decision on questions of law by reference to the State Advocate-General. This might not be perfect. It has at least the merit of having a quick decision without long drawn out legal arguments and costs. All this shows that the processes, the purpose and the orders of the Industrial Arbitration Court cannot be regarded as those of courts of justice. The Court is, as I have said, concerned with the registration of collective agreements made between the parties and the making of agreements for employers and employees when they cannot reach agreement on their own account. Once this is accepted, I feel it will be wrong to allow appeals from such agreements and awards. It has already been accepted that the parties should not be represented by advocates and solicitors in negotiations under the Ordinance. This has, on the whole, worked very well in practice and the parties have been able to deal with the substantial merits of their claims without regard to technicalities and legal forms. As it is the view of the Government that all negotiations should be conducted under the provisions of the Ordinance, it is logical that prohibition against legal representation should be extended to all negotiations relating to industrial matters. The amendment to section 21 of the Ordinance by clause 7 of the Bill will enable a relaxation to be made in the general prohibition against participation in negotiations in industrial matters by advocates and solicitors. Where the Minister feels that the presence or assistance of an advocate and solicitor may be useful, he may direct such advocate and solicitor to attend for compulsory conferences under section 21 of the Ordinance. This was agreed in a meeting which I held with the last committee of the Singapore Bar Committee. As regards the transfer of power of certification of collective agreements from the President to the Court, the purpose of it is to equate the certifying of agreements with the making of awards and to enable proceedings to be taken where offences are committed in relation to the Court and in the case of contempts of the Court under sections 65 and 66 of the Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill which the Minister has moved amending the Industrial Relations Ordinance contains certain provisions that will bring about significant changes in industrial relations in Singapore. Sir, first of all, it will be remembered that the Industrial Relations Ordinance was drawn up after thorough discussions with the representatives of workers and trade unions. It is also well known that certain provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance were themselves of a controversial nature and the overall Bill presented to this House was, in fact, a compromise Bill which contained as much of the unions' views as the Government considered possible, and the unions agreed to certain provisions as a general compromise, provisions which the Government had advocated. Sir, it will be remembered perhaps that I was one of the Members of this House who supported the Industrial Relations Ordinance. But that support was a conditional support. I recall that I did clearly say that if it were the Lim Yew Hock Government then proposing the Industrial Relations Ordinance, then there would be pickets outside the Legislative Assembly House. I said that the unions were prepared to accept the Industrial Relations Ordinance as it was introduced here because the workers and unions had confidence then in the Government and they believed that the Ordinance would be put to use in a manner that would bring great advantage to the unions and workers in the process of collective bargaining. Sir, unfortunately, experience has only brought about disappointment to many unions. I notice in the amendment that the intention of the Government seems to be to provide another Court. I must say whether it is to be one Court or two Courts is not as important as to what purpose these Arbitration Courts are to be put to use. Sir, if the Arbitration Courts are to be looked upon by workers and employers as political institutions of the Government, and if workers are to regard them merely as instruments of the P.A.P. and even if employers are to look upon them as instruments of the Government for taking decisions which are politically advantageous to the Government, then I say that one, two or three Courts are not going to help industrial relations in any way. Sir, this does not mean that the Barisan Sosialis are against the amendment to provide for more than one Court. We do realise that the present Arbitration Court is not able to cope with the cases. I am told that some cases which were referred as early as late last year are still to be heard by the Court. Therefore, in principle, we have no objection to having two or three Courts as the case may be. But what we are against is the use of the Arbitration Court for political purposes. Sir, I do not have to go into examples to quote what some unions and employers have said about the Arbitration Court. I am quite certain that the Minister for Health and Law is aware and I am quite certain that Members, generally in the Government Benches, are aware of this. Sir, when the Arbitration Court was appointed, it was stated that the purpose of the Court was to assist in industrial relations. The Government statement and the statement of the President of the Court made at the opening of the Court, and even the Government manifesto made it quite clear that the Arbitration Court was not going to mean compulsory arbitration, that the Arbitration Court was not going to mean interference in industrial relations. Sir, there have been cases, but before I come to them, clause 11 in page 4 of the amending Bill to insert a new section to the Ordinance provides for compulsory conciliation together with clause 7 in page 3. There have been cases in the past where the Government conciliation machinery had thought fit to interfere in legitimate trade disputes. We have nothing whatsoever against the Government for assisting the settlement between employers and employees. But we cannot have the Government interfering in collective bargaining when it is not called upon to interfere. We cannot accept the position where the Government interfere with collective bargaining to make political capital. I need only quote, Sir, the notorious case of the Government intervention in the Shaw dispute.

You said you won.

It is important that if the Government want to honour what they said in the election manifesto and what the Court President and what the Government themselves stated at the opening of the Court, that the actual purpose of the Court is to try and assist both unions and employers in bringing about a settlement, then they must try and avoid unnecessary interference in trade disputes. That again, I believe, is well known to Members. Today when collective agreements are drawn up and sent to the Court for certification, even in the wording of the agreements, quite a lot of fuss is made by some people in responsible positions in the Arbitration Court. Sir, I do not know whether the Minister for Health and Law will agree with me that it is necessary when drawing up collective agreements to have phraseology that is acceptable to the workers and the employers. It does not necessarily mean that the legal form of wording is necessarily understood and accepted by workers and by employers. Sir, it has been found in practice that a good agreement is an agreement that is simple and straightforward with no legal jargon. But unfortunately, in practice, we have found the Arbitration Court wanting to change "shall" to "will" and "but" to "and", and "a" to "b", and so on. I am sure, Sir, if the Minister wishes to be serious, he will agree with me that this is not the important criterion for wanting to certify an agreement. There have been cases where I have myself been told personally that because I have refused to change one word "will", the agreement must not be certified. Sir, in the principal Ordinance, the President of the Arbitration Court can only refuse to certify an agreement if he considers it to be against public interest. I notice there is an amendment moved here - and basically that is maintained - viz, clause 8, at page 3 of the Bill: `The Court may in its discretion refuse to certify a memorandum delivered under subsection (1) of this section if it is of opinion that it is not in the public interest...'. And principally the position is that only if the Arbitration Court considers that a collective agreement is not in the interests of the public, then it can refuse to certify a collective agreement. But, Sir, there have been cases where collective agreements have not been certified for various other reasons. Sir, what I have to say in respect of the various clauses I would rather reserve until we come to the Committee stage. But what I do want to say. Sir, in conclusion is that this amendment Bill is being rushed through in quite some haste. We in the Barisan Sosialis feel that the unions must be consulted on this amendment before it is adopted. Thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a fair and reasonable suggestion that we are making. The principal Ordinance was drawn up only after consultation with the unions and their representatives. And I say that the amendments, particularly the amendments which would in my view bring about very significant changes - for example, changes to provide for compulsory conciliation which is just one step below compulsory arbitration - we have reason to believe, Mr Speaker, that the Government are, in fact, thinking of compulsory arbitration. We feel that amendments of this nature and of this significance are matters that will affect radically all trade unions, all employers and every aspect of industrial relations in Singapore. Therefore, we think it is only fair that the Government arrange to have proper consultation with trade unions and their representatives before they seek to pass this Bill. 2.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are one or two points on which I wish to address the House. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to deal with what I consider to be the legal aspects of this Bill, and my colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, will deal with what may be called the trade union aspect of this Bill. Sir, I agree with the Member for Thomson that the purpose of moving the original Bill was, as he says, to assist industrial relations in Singapore. You may recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when that Bill was brought into the House originally, there was a difficult situation prevailing in the industrial world, a situation that was tending to upset the economy of the country. And therefore it became necessary to introduce the Bill in order to bring some stability in industrial relations. The justification for this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, from my point of view is this: the employer and the employee as a result of this legislation would be able beforehand to know where either stands in matters related to industrial disputes. So that unless there is a firm base on which both parties to a dispute could work on and unless that firm base continues throughout the dispute and also throughout the hearing of the dispute in the Court, we could have a situation where either party could have any confidence in this law. The first point I wish to bring up arising out of the point I have now made, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this: the first base - the first inescapable base - on which industrial relations can be regulated is the base of the law. Now, both parties to a dispute must clearly understand the law affecting an industrial dispute; and how that legal position will be effected in a dispute as a result of a decision by the Industrial Arbitration Court is a matter which concerns both parties to the dispute. Mr Speaker, I agree with the Minister for Law that the Industrial Court must have a great deal of latitude and that it must have a great deal of room in which to manoeuvre - if I may use that phrase, and I use it in no disrespectful sense - in order that industrial peace might be maintained. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, if in the latitude given to this Court it violates the law of the land, then that Court is bringing about a situation in Singapore when neither party to the dispute can have any confidence in the Court because neither party will know what the Court will do next, if it is not firmly anchored to the base of the law. To make my point clear, Mr Speaker, I will refer to two cases which the Court decided. I think one is the case of the newspaper known as the Kerala Bandu where there was a dispute between an employee and the employer, the newspaper. So far as I could read the judgment of the Court, it held that the dismissal of this employee was justified. Having held that the dismissal of the employee was justified, the Court then went on to order six months' compensation to the employee whose dismissal was justified. Now, the Court cannot have it both ways, Mr Speaker, Sir, If the dismissal was justified, no question of compensation arises. That would be the normal decision in a Court. Now, is the Industrial Court then to be allowed to set itself above the law of the country and while holding that the dismissal was justified, yet to say, "I feel you the employer should give him six months' compensation"? If it says six months, it could well say two years. What point does one then reach, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Industrial Court is allowed arbitrarily to flout the law of the land? Might I mention just one other case? I think it was in a dispute between a transport company and its employees where the Industrial Court ordered that the transport company should take back the employees whose case the Court had tried. The first principle of law in a contract of employment is that there can be no specific performance of a contract of employment. That is the base of the law on which we all securely rest. If the Industrial Court is allowed to upset that base, I ask you, Mr Speaker, Sir, what confidence can there be in the employing public? In our economy the employing public is just as important as that section of the public which is being employed. Unless both of them know what their rights and liabilities are under the law of the country, and how the Industrial Court will honour the law of the country, it will be impossible, in my submission, Mr Speaker, Sir, to establish a state of affairs where both parties could have any confidence in this Court. That brings me to the present Bill by virtue of which the Government is now seeking to give this Court even greater powers and greater latitude by trying to make it absolutely impossible, in so far as human ingenuity can, to take any dispute from this Court to the High Court. It appears that there are certain loopholes under the existing Ordinance through which the decisions of the Industrial Court were taken to our normal Courts and as a result of which certain decisions of the Industrial Court have been queried. Some of the amendments here are intended to plug these loopholes. I do seriously ask the Government to consider this: whether it is their intention, by giving the Industrial Court this immunity by not allowing any appeal to any other tribunal, to enable the Industrial Court to go on such a rampage as to over-ride the law of the land and to formulate their own laws in making decisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point is the question of referees. Under the existing Ordinance, it is possible now for the President of the Industrial Court to be named a referee either under a collective agreement under section 23 of the Ordinance or under an award made by the Court - where either the parties privately amongst themselves could nominate the President of the Court to be a referee or the Court itself could nominate the President to be a referee. Now the situation was reached where the referee's decision was challenged and the referee himself sat as a court on his own decision - a situation highly undesirable, however much one may contend that it is quite legal under the provisions of the existing Ordinance. I see that the Government is taking steps to alter the existing law by making it not possible for the President or the Deputy President to sit as a referee. I welcome that, because it is contrary to the accepted principle of law that a person who makes a decision should be allowed to sit in judgment on an appeal from his decision. But I do draw the attention of the Minister to this. Under section 23 - these are matters on which I will elaborate when we come to the clauses in Committee - it would appear from the general phrasing of the Industrial Relaxations (Amendment) Bill now before us that the right of appeal from referees appointed under section 23 of the Ordinance is not the same as under the section which provides for an appeal from a referee under a Court award. A point the Minister was making was that a collective agreement will now go to the Court for approval, meaning the President and two other persons appointed from the panels instead of as now to the President alone, and thereby implying that the position is being made much better than it is today. But what he gives with the left hand he takes back with the right by moving another amendment to section 55 of the Ordinance which says that the powers of the Court under sections 23, 52, 53 and 54 of this Ordinance shall be exercisable by the Court constituted by the President alone. So although he says under section 23 the agreements will be approved by the Court, but under section 55 he brings in an amendment whereby the President acting under section 55 means the Court itself. I do suggest to the Minister that wherever a referee has given a decision, that referee's decision should go to an Industrial Court composed of three persons and not to the President alone. And I make this further point. That any appeal from the decision of an Industrial Court on a point of law should be treated like that of an appeal from the normal courts of the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the most significant phrase of the speech of the Member for Thomson is this, "That the Industrial Arbitration Court is made an instrument of the P.A.P." When the Industrial Relations Bill was debated in this House in 1960 at that time there was only the genuine opposition of eight Members - I did say that it would appear that what the Government was trying to do was to make this law to serve the P.A.P. At that time, the 13 great Barisan Members who sat on the other side of the House ridiculed my allegations. They laughed at me. They were not content with that. They even cried out that had it been a Lim Yew Hock Government, such a Bill would not have been introduced by that Government. Strange to say, Sir, the shoe must now be pinching the foot of the Member for Thomson for him to use the same words as I used. The Industrial Arbitration Court is intended to be an instrument of the P.A.P. Sir, my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, has pointed out the various points of law. But what I want to add now is just a little bit from the trade union angle. One thing that struck me as being funny is that it is now the intention of the Government, by the proposed amendment, to wipe out the T.U.C. of which they were singing high praises in 1960. They said that the T.U.C. was wonderful, a genuine organisation for workers, and that it had the support of the Government, and therefore, it must be given due recognition. Now it seems that the T.U.C. is to be taken out of the picture. I cannot understand why, because, as far as I know - and I may be wrong, I am subject to correction - the T.U.C. is still a legal entity. It has not been dissolved in accordance with the Constitution of the T.U.C. It was said to have been dissolved just because the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. had a few words with his colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, at that time, along these lines. "Things are getting dangerous. The Communists are getting control. We must dissolve the T.U.C." So said Mr Kandasamy, the Secretary-General; and there was the Minister for Labour and Law saying, "Yes, we must dissolve the T.U.C." And yet the T.U.C. is today a legal entity. I am subject to correction. If I am wrong, the Minister will, of course, point out my mistakes. But as far as I know, the T.U.C. is still a legal entity. Now it would seem that the great heroes of the T.U.C. - the Ten Tall Men - plus the tallest of them all, the Secretary-General, are now divided into two camps, the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis. The T.U.C. is no longer functioning, although the T.U.C. is still a registered body. I do hope that when the Minister asks for nomination from the trade union employees he must take due note that the unions which will be asked to nominate employees are genuine unions and they should not try to consider it from the point of view whether it is a P.A.P. union or a Barisan Sosialis union or an independent union. If the Minister for Health and Law were to continue the evil practice that the P.A.P. has been following for the past two and a half years, before the disintegration of the P.A.P., life would be unhappy for all. It could not solve industrial disputes in that way. It is not possible. In fact, I did say that the Bill they were introducing in 1960 would not help to bring peace in the industrial field. In fact, it would encourage more industrial unrest. It has happened. And now the Government, having learnt the error of their ways, have seen fit to introduce an amendment Bill to help correct the mischief which they deliberately perpetrated. Sir, the amendment Bill is important. When the original Bill was debated, we did urge upon the Government that it should be referred to a Select Committee because at almost the last minute, the Government introduced 50 rush amendments. We were defeated because the Barisan Sosialis were on the other side and they were at that time in cahoots with the P.A.P. But now, although the amending Bill is such a small Bill, yet the effect of the amendments to be proposed is great. I would urge upon the Government, in order to bring a healthier atmosphere to the industrial field and to give the trade unions an opportunity to give their views on the proposed amendments, to refer this Bill to Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be very brief. I am conscious that the Singapore Bar Committee has made considerable recommendations with reference to this Bill and I find that its recommendations have not been considered. I am sure that the trade union movement has had no opportunity to study this Bill - it having been sprung on us at the commencement of this referendum debate - and I rise merely to support the Member for Cairnhill in his plea that important though it is that we should have an early second Court, it is nevertheless even more important, in the light of the amendments proposed, that this Bill should be sent to Select Committee, and that the trade unions and others interested be given an opportunity to make their representations.

Mr Byrne, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first deal with the questions raised by the Member for Thomson just now. He has gained the impression that, by the amendment we have proposed in clause 11 of the Bill, the Government are seeking to introduce what he has termed "compulsory conciliation". Clause 11 of the Bill introduces a new section 27A in the Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not follow how he could have got that impression.

On a point of explanation, Sir. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

I did say clause 7 of the Bill on page 3.

I thought the hon. Member referred to the new section 27A in clause 11. Which clause is it to which the hon. Member referred?

I referred to clause 7 of the amending Bill which seeks to amend subsection (1) of section 21 of the principal Ordinance which would, in effect, be compulsory conciliation.

If the hon. Member is referring to the amendment to section 21 of the principal Ordinance, there would really be no point for me to speak on clause 11 now. There has been no interference whatsoever with the procedure laid down in respect of collective bargaining in Part III of the Bill. Although this procedure is referred to in section 21 of the Ordinance, it was never followed in the sense that the Minister could always compel compulsory conferences even if the procedures set out in the earlier provisions of this part of the Bill were not followed, and the amendment gives effect to the existing practice. That is all it does. It was found in practice that there were unions which did not follow the procedures laid down in this part of the Bill and circumstances arose where the Minister had to call compulsory conferences. In those circumstances, if you will look at the wording of section 21 of the Ordinance, the Minister would legally be restrained from directing persons to attend conferences where the procedures were not followed. But, in fact, he did call compulsory conferences. And this amendment gives effect to that practice. I cannot see how the Member for Thomson can say that the Government are intending, by this amendment, to introduce what he has termed "compulsory conciliation". The second point he made was that we were amending the provisions with regard to collective bargaining to make it more difficult for the unions to get their collective agreements registered. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was found in practice that the unions were entering into collective agreements with employers, and on the sideline entering into other agreements which were not shown in the agreements which they brought before the Court for registration. This amendment has been introduced to put a stop to those malpractices. Surely the Member for Thomson cannot object to this amendment in view of his knowledge that there were such sideline agreements being entered into between employers and unions. Now on his third point, the Member for Thomson said that there must be consultation before any amendments are introduced. We agreed clause 83 of this Bill with the "Ten Tall Men" in the former T.U.C. It is provided here that amendments should be made in accordance with the observations on the working of the Ordinance by the President of the Court, and this amending Ordinance is introduced in consequence of the Report that the Government have received from the President of the Industrial Court on the working of the Court for the period 15th September. 1960, to 31st December, 1961. So where then is there any justification for his contention that there must be consultation before an amending Bill like this is introduced? Now, let me deal with the comments of the Member for Farrer Park. He said that there must be a legal basis for all judicial determinations. He has quoted the case where the Court found that the dismissal of a certain employee was justified and it still proceeded to award compensation. He has also drawn the attention of the House to another case where an employee in a transport company was dismissed and the employer was obliged to reinstate him in employment. Mr Speaker, Sir, those are the very functions of this Court. It is provided in section 56 of the Ordinance that the Court in making its decisions `. . . shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms.' It is because of these considerations that the Court can make such orders. The Court is able to look into all the circumstances of the case and then make a determination. On the question of referees, we have realised that it would be against good legal practice to allow the President of the Court to be a referee in an award and for him then as the President of the Court to adjudicate on the award that he has made; and for that purpose these amendments have been made. In the case of referees, whether they are appointed by the collective agreement itself or whether a referee is designated in an award, when he makes a decision, and if there is an appeal, it would have to be the Court under section 40 of the Ordinance. Now, for the submissions of the Member for Anson. Of course, he knows very little about this. I will, however, tell him that I held many meetings with the Bar Committee on the amendments that we propose to this Bill. They insisted that (here should be an appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal from the decisions of this Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have indicated just now, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, when the Member for Anson was not present, why it is not possible for us to allow an appeal on the facts from an award to a Court of Appeal.

Not on facts.

On facts or on mixed questions of facts and law to the Court of Appeal. That is not possible for this reason, that the processes are quite different. The common law, as we know it, enforces private agreements between the parties. The common law, as we know it, never enforces a collective agreement as such. Under the procedures of this Court, the parties make collective agreements which they proceed to register. If they fail to make these agreements, it is this third party which is designated the Court which makes the agreements for them. Under that procedure, it is not possible for points of law to arise in the making of the agreement. For that reason, it is not possible for there to be an appeal, from an award of the Court to the Court of Appeal. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I have adequately explained to the Members of the House the reasons for the amendments to this Bill. I would say that we are not attempting any major revisions of this Ordnance. We are only introducing improvements which have been suggested by the President of the Court on the working of this tribunal for the past 18 months.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee. 3.31 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2- Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, on clause 2 (b), the definition of "industrial matters" is being amended. Sir, in the principal Ordinance, "industrial matters" means "matters pertaining to the relaxations of employers and employees which are connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person." Now, this amendment, Sir, seeks to insert the exclusion "but shall not include any individual agreement or contract of service between employer and employee relating to the employment or terms of employment of such employee". It appears to me that if this exclusion is inserted, it may very well affect the unions in their industrial relaxations with the employers. For instance, it may be that an employer can have an individual contract with an employee who may be eligible to join a trade union and such contract can contain terms which may be considered unsatisfactory. It does appear to me, if such a case should arise, that the union will - be denied the right to negotiate on that issue with the employer because that will not come within the definition of "industrial matters". I would like to ask the Minister to clarify this, Sir, If the Minister can assure us that this will not be the case, then we will have no objection to this amendment. But it does appear to me, as I say, that there is every possibility of an employer drawing up a contract of service with an employee on unsatisfactory terms and then refusing to negotiate with the union on such terms, because such terms do not come within the definition of "industrial matters".

Mr Speaker, Sir, all that the amendment does is to shut out from the provisions of this Ordinance any individual agreement of service between an employer and an employee which does not concern a union. The Member for Thomson has not looked carefully at section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance wherein it is provided that an employee, bound by an award, may recover in any court of competent jurisdiction any amount which he is entitled to be paid by way of wages or otherwise in accordance with the award. An award, Mr Speaker, is both an award made by the Court and the collective agreement which is registered with the Court. So that it is not possible for employers to use this amendment to enter into individual contracts of service with individual employees so as to defeat the purposes of this Ordinance.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 - Question proposed, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, clause 5 is a very significant amendment. Sir, in the explanatory statement it is quite clearly stated that: `The appointment of members to the employees panel is to be selected by such trade unions of employees as may be invited by the Minister.' Sir, this amendment will mean the deletion of the Singapore Trades Union Congress from the principal Ordinance and the substitution of the phrase "a trade union of employees". As is well known today, in place of the Singapore Trades Union Congress, there is no central organisation of trade unions. There is the Singapore Association of Trade Unions, which is awaiting registration, and the Singapore National Trade Union Centre, which is also awaiting registration. In the first place, Sir, the legal position of the Singapore Trades Union Congress is still not clear. As the Member for Cairnhill has already pointed out earlier on, the T.U.C. legally still functions. In fact, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour in this House itself once confirmed that the T.U.C. was still a legal body. While, on the one hand, the T.U.C. legally exists, we have two other central organisations seeking registration. The Minister proposes to have appointments made to the panel of the Court from nominations by individual unions. If the explanatory statement is of any guide, it is quite certain that such nominations will only be accepted from unions that may be invited by the Minister. Sir, knowing the performance of P.A.P. Ministers in the past there is no doubt whatsoever that it would disregard the large number of unions which do not come within the ambit of the National Trade Union Centre. There is no doubt again that the majority of the unions are within the S.A.T.U. group of unions. If a proper representative panel is to be had, then representation must be sought from all unions irrespective of whether they belong to the S.A.T.U. group of unions or the N.T.U.C. group of unions. I would like to ask the Minister, first of all, whether it is his intention to consult all unions or just selected unions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson is aware of section 6 (2) of the Ordinance which provides that: `The employer panel and the employee panel shall each consist of ten persons appointed by the Minister whose names shall be notified in the Gazette.'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson was one of the Ten Tall Men when there was a T.U.C. As a Minister I had written to the T.U.C. umpteen times for nominations from them. But the Ten Tall Men would only designate four persons to serve on the employee panel of this Court. There have been differences amongst them and a break-up of the trade union position, but these four persons are still members of the employee panel. Mr Speaker, Sir, we would be glad to have a representative selection of the trade unionists to be on the employee side of the Court. I can give the Member for Thomson this assurance, if it is really necessary, that we would be glad to have nominees from these respective groups on this Court. He knows the position, Mr Speaker, Sir. He is trying to make a political point, knowing it to be untrue, in this House today.

I am glad the Minister is able to give an assurance on the lines that I have asked for. But I must say that if the T.U.C. does not nominate sufficient members to the panel, then it is as much the fault of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture as it is mine and any other member of the Secretariat. Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to ask the Minister what is the necessity in wanting to have the amendment made here to delete the Singapore Trades Union Congress when the Trades Union Congress, in fact, at the moment exists as a legal body, although the Secretariat of the T.U.C. does not function, although the Executive Council of the T.U.C. does not function, because they have all read in the papers that the Minister has had it dissolved. Nevertheless, it appears that the legal position of the T.U.C. is such that it still functions. Surely if the Minister wants to amend the provision to provide for some other organisation instead of the Singapore Trades Union Congress, then it must necessarily be a central organisation of trade unions. But if he just simply says "a trade union of employees" - Sir, in Singapore there are on paper about 120 trade unions. About 30 of them are ghost unions and about 90 of them are active. Surely the Minister is not going to write to 90 trade unions in Singapore asking them to nominate members to the panel.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we must accept the fact that the T.U.C. is in a state of suspended animation. Two groups have broken away from it and set themselves up as the S.A.T.U. group and the National group of trade unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to accept this as a fact. We have had difficulty already in getting the employee panel for the Court that is functioning now. We propose to introduce another Court. So we must have more of these gentlemen to serve on these employee panels. We are doing our best to get a representative group for these panels. It is no use writing to the T.U.C. when you know that there will be no response from that organisation. We are practical people. We want to deal fairly with the unions. We know which unions have large followings, and the Minister should be left to exercise his discretion to write to the unions to submit their names. I am telling you, Mr Speaker, that some of these powerful unions do not want to be associated with the work of this Court. They want to keep outside and snipe at it. We have great difficulty in getting them to nominate to the panels of these Courts and if the Member for Thomson could urge them to serve in them we should be delighted indeed.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Question proposed. "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, it is proposed to introduce a new sub-clause: `The members of the Court shall take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath.' I take it that the members of the Court here include the two panel members. Could I ask the Minister what oath of allegiance and what judicial oath the Bill has in mind?

These are oaths all magistrates and judges take. The President of the Court has taken both these oaths and we feel that it is right and proper that the members on these panels when they serve on these panels understand that they are there exercising a judicial function. If they were to adopt a partisan attitude, then there would be very little confidence in the work of the Court. It is for that reason that this extra provision has been added to section 13 of the principal Ordinance. 3.45 p.m.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 - Question proposed, "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, section 21 (1) of the principal Ordinance provides: `The Minister may, where he considers it possible that a trade dispute notified by the Commissioner under section 18 or 20 of this Ordinance may be settled by conciliation or further conciliation, direct a person, whether engaged in or connected with the trade dispute or not, to attend at a time and place specified in the direction at a conference presided over by the Minister or such person as the Minister directs.' Sir, it is quite clearly provided here that the Minister may only direct trade disputes that have been notified by the Commissioner under section 18 or 20 of this Ordinance. Whereas if the amendment were to be accepted, then it would mean any trade dispute. Sir, I do not know the intention of the P.A.P. Government as to exactly what they propose to do. But knowing again, Sir, their performance in the past and realising that there is a new clause moved to section 27A, it does appear to me that the intention of the Government is, in fact, to make conciliation compulsory. Sir, I will be --- Mr Byrne shook his head.

Sir, the Minister for Health and Law shakes his head. I will be very glad indeed if the Minister will stand up and say that they will not make conciliation compulsory. At the moment, as the Minister says, he has the power to call for compulsory conferences. But he can only do so if the dispute has been notified by the Commissioner under section 18 or 20 of this Ordinance. Sir, the Minister may say later on that the Communist group of unions are avoiding the conciliation machinery and are not abiding by section 16 of the Ordinance which provides that negotiations are to follow as a set procedure. I must tell the Minister, Sir, that it is not that these unions want to avoid the Ministry of Labour. It is not that they want to carry out negotiations outside the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Minister knows full well that there are numerous disputes that arise between unions and employers every day. There are disputes as important as wage claims, claims in respect of improvement of conditions of service; also there are disputes like dismissals, pay cuts and so on. There are hundreds of these disputes. I shall deal with that point when we come to discussing clause 11 of the amendment Bill. But it is however related to section 7 of the Bill. It is not possible, in the first place, to have every single dispute follow the provisions of this Ordinance. That I think the Minister will agree. We have no objection whatsoever to having section 16 and other related sections followed strictly in industrial relations. But what we do not want is to give the Minister wide powers - a blank cheque - to compel any dispute to be referred to the Ministry of Labour. It is not out of place for me to mention once again the Shaw dispute. In the Shaw dispute, the Minister for Labour unreasonably interfered with the negotiations. He called on the workers to attend a conciliation meeting in the Victoria Memorial Hall, a call unprecedented in the history of the labour movement in Singapore, a call that was made in complete disregard of a trade union that was legally registered to represent the workers, a trade union which enjoyed the confidence of the workers. I do not want to go into various other examples. But I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind, knowing the P.A.P., that the purpose of this amendment is to have the right to interfere with any trade dispute as they choose. As I said, if the Minister is prepared to give an assurance, and if provided he honours that assurance that it is not his intention or the intention of his Government to interfere with trade disputes when they are not called upon to interfere, then I shall be much obliged indeed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Thomson has got the wrong end of the stick. Sections 18 and 20 provide that a trade dispute has to be notified by the Commissioner to the Minister. Section 16 says: `A trade union of employees may serve on an employer...notice...for a collective agreement setting out proposals for a collective agreement.' Now, if after one week the employer has not served a notice of acceptance, then the union under section 18 will inform the Commissioner for Labour that the employer has ignored the service of the notice. Then the Commissioner will do what he can to try and bring the two parties together, and when the Commissioner feels it is his duty, he shall then notify the Minister. And if the Minister so directs, he then notifies the Registrar of the Arbitration Court. Section 20 is just an extension of section 16 where a notice has been served and where the employer has accepted the notice and the two parties have sat for a period of two weeks and tried to thrash out an agreement, and where no agreement has been reached, any party - the union of employees or the employer himself - can notify the Commissioner. The Commissioner then will do what he can to bring about peace through conciliation. It is only when he so feels that his attempts at conciliation are unsuccessful that he notifies the Minister. The Minister, if he so directs the Commissioner, shall then notify the Registrar of the Arbitration Court. Unless these two sections of this Part of this Ordinance have been complied with, section 21 means that unless the Minister has been notified of a trade dispute, he cannot exercise his powers under section 21. The powers conferred on the Minister under section 21 is to try to bring about peace. The amendment will just give the Minister the extra power that is required to promote industrial peace. With this amendment he can, even if the union or the employer tries to hide things away from the Commissioner, and even if they do not go through the process outlined in Part III where the Commissioner has not been notified of any negotiations or any dispute, the Minister can, if he feels that the interests of the country demand it, bring the two parties together by force and tell them that they have to sit down and find a solution to the dispute. The Minister has no power under section 21 to force any party to accept anything. What he has the power to do is to summon any trade union or any employer to come to his office for a discussion even though that union or that employer deliberately keeps it quiet and wants to keep the dispute outside the scope of this Industrial Relations Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the procedure in respect of collective bargaining set out in Part III of this Bill was agreed to between the Government and the Ten Tall Men. Mr Speaker, Sir, they undertook to follow these procedures. The moment this Bill was enacted, Mr Speaker, Sir, they refused to follow the procedure set out in this Part of the Bill. They proceeded to make agreements which they considered to be in pursuance of industrial relations outside the provisions of this Ordinance. If you will look at Part III of the Bill you will see it sets out the procedure to be followed. Whenever a union enters into collective bargaining, in all fairness and in all justice, it must serve a notice to treat first. It must give the employer a chance to consider its proposals. There must be a meeting between the parties. Then if they cannot reach agreement, if they are deadlocked, the dispute is referred to the Commissioner for Labour. He tries to conciliate. And if they still fail to reach agreement, then he refers the matter to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Minister. These are the processes they have agreed with us. No sooner had this Bill been enacted, Mr Speaker. Sir, then they refused to follow these procedures. They said that there was such a thing as collective bargaining outside the procedures of this Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a loophole in the law. We believed that we were dealing with honest people. Because of their dishonesty, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to tighten up the provisions of this Bill. That is why it is provided - and clause 7 so provides - that the Minister shall have the power to compel a compulsory conference whether they have followed these procedures or not. And clause 11 of the Bill, which introduces a new section 27A, makes it an offence for anybody to conduct negotiations otherwise than in accordance with the procedures set out in this Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson knows the position very well that these procedures have to be followed only on occasions when, say, a union puts forward proposals for a collective agreement in relation to any industrial matter. If it wants to ask the employer for a collective agreement with regard to salaries or conditions of service, then it must have recourse to these procedures. But where things like this happen, where men are dismissed in the course of their work, Mr Speaker, Sir, these procedures do not require that you serve a notice on the employer. Why should you serve a notice on an employer with regard to a dismissal? That is the view the Member for Thomson was putting forward. If he looks at section 16 of the Ordinance, it is quite clear that these procedures must be followed only when there are requests for a proposal with regard to a collective agreement. 4.00 p.m.

Sir, the Minister for Health and Law is in the habit of getting excited very quickly, Mr Speaker. I must state quite clearly that nobody is against using the Government conciliation machinery. Nobody is against going through the procedures laid down in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. If there have been cases where notices for collective agreements were not sent under section 16 of the Ordinance, there have been good reasons. As far as I know, and I am advised so by legal men, whether at the moment a notice is served under section 16 or not, the Minister, if he wants to, can refer that dispute to arbitration, because he has the power. Now, we as reasonable men, Mr Speaker, Sir, expect the Ministry of Labour to interfere in industrial relaxations only to seek to use the conciliation machinery when there is a deadlock, or when there is no progress made between employer and employee and where either the employer or the union requests conciliation. But the Government's opinion of conciliation is quite different, Mr Speaker. To the Government, conciliation means they just interfere wholesale, anyhow, and at any time they like. That, I say. Mr Speaker, Sir, is not desirable in industrial relations. Sir, it is one thing to expect the Government to assist in industrial relations by making its facilities available, but it is another thing to tolerate the Government interfering in industrial relations purely for the purpose of making political capital out of it. Sir, the Minister was saying that only notice for a collective agreement need be filed under section 16 and the other sections of the Ordinance. He also said that a collective agreement would only refer to matters like wages and conditions of service, and so on. Sir, the Minister does not know what is happening in Singapore. Today there are many employers who refuse to negotiate with the unions on any matter that comes within the definition of "industrial matters" as provided in the Ordinance, unless a notice is served under section 16. All that the Minister for Law has to do is to consult his Conciliation Officers in the Ministry of Labour to know the truth of this statement. Today, an employer can refuse to negotiate with a union on a dismissal case if the request to open negotiations on that case is not filed under section 16. And if the Minister does not know this, then he is not aware of what is happening in the industrial world. There is no use seeking to provide amendments that will render the position impracticable. And I say, Sir, quite honestly that the new section that they are proposing - section 27A - and this clause 7 will simply mean that the Government have a free hand to interfere in industrial relations. That is exactly what we seek to oppose. But this, again I repeat it, does not mean that we do not want to use the Government conciliation machinery. The Minister knows that if he asks the Minister for Labour to compile statistics to show which unions have sent in the most number of disputes to the conciliation machinery, the answer will be unions that they call Communist front organisations. Sir, if our intention is not to use the Ministry of Labour - and we do not have to go there - then what more, Sir, we have had a situation where the majority of collective agreements drawn up in Singapore have been drawn up outside the Ministry of Labour. I hope the Minister will not stand up and say again that we are against the use of the conciliation machinery in the Ministry of Labour, that we do not want to file notices under section 16 of the Ordinance, and that we do not want to use the provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance to carry on our negotiations. As I said, the position is such that today there are many employers who refuse to negotiate on any matter if notices are not filed under section 16 of the Ordinance.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Thomson just now referred to the Shaw case. He said that the Minister for Labour took unprecedented action in asking the workers to meet him in connection with that dispute. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has also said that the position today is this: that employers refuse to treat with the unions unless they follow the procedures set out in this Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is all the more reason therefore why there should be this power vested in the Minister. He should have the power to send for the parties if they cannot reach agreement. There is nothing to prevent both sides getting together, following these procedures outside the Labour Ministry and entering into agreements and then taking their agreements and getting them registered with the Registry of the Industrial Arbitration Court. We welcome that. There will be no trouble for the Labour Ministry and both sides can get together, make their agreements and register them. It is only when there is a breakdown in negotiations, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the procedures for conciliation available to both sides in the Labour Ministry must be resorted to. And that procedure is indicated in this Part of the Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, this section 21 and these procedures were agreed with the Ten Tall Men. They wanted it to be so. They wanted the Minister to have these powers. They mentioned to us, at the time when this Bill was drafted, that they were in an impossible position unless the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were vested with the power. They might make approaches to an employer for a collective agreement, but he tells them, "Go and play." And it is because of their representations that these powers were given to the Minister. Now they say the Minister is trying to force his will on them, that he is trying to compel them to follow collective bargaining procedures. Mr Speaker, Sir, all this is laid down in the Bill. Why does he make such a lot of fuss about it? I do not understand him at all.

That is what you propose to do.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8- Question proposed, "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 8 deals with section 23 of the principal Ordinance. One of the amendments there, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that wherever the word "President" occurs, to substitute the word "Court". As we know, Mr Speaker, the Court consists of the President, or the Deputy President as the case may be, and two members from the panel. When one reads the amended clause, one gets the impression that it will go to a Court of three. If you will be good enough to turn to page 5 of the Bill, under clause 14: `Subsection (1) of section 55 of the principal Ordinance is hereby amended by inserting immediately after the word "sections" appearing in the first line thereof the expression "23,". Reading in that intended amendment to the existing section 55, the amended section 55 will read as follows: `The powers of the Court under sections 23, 52, 53 and 54 of this Ordinance shall be exercisable by the Court constituted by the President alone.' So the result of these two amendments - which, as I said, you give with one hand and take with the other - really leaves in effect the amended section 23 - there is the word "President" - exactly the same as section 23 is today. Although the amended clause that is agreed to will read "Court", yet the President will exercise the power of the Court on his own as he is, in fact, now doing under statutory authority. I see no point in making such a song and dance about altering the word from "President" to "Court" when a corresponding amendment is made to the existing section 55. That is the first point. The other point is on the amendment "may be a person designated in the agreement or" with which I am in entire agreement with the Government. This gets us away from the present position where the employer and the employee may appoint the President or the Deputy President of the Court, which I think is very desirable. I welcome that amendment. Now, Mr Speaker, perhaps it might be convenient if I deal with clause 12 at this stage because what I am going to raise on this clause would impinge on that. Clause 12, Mr Speaker, Sir, gives the right of appeal from the decision of the referee to the Court, and the decision of the Court on such appeal shall be final and conclusive. I welcome that portion of the amendment which allows an appeal from a referee to the Court and an appeal from a referee to the Court in that case would be to a Court of three persons. That is a good provision. I accept that. 4.15 p.m. Now, if one looks at section 39, it refers to awards and referees under an Award; whereas a referee appointed under an agreement is dealt with under section 23. Then the new subsection (3) to section 39 reads- `An appeal shall lie from the decision of the referee to the Court and the decision of the Court on such appeal shall be final and conclusive. On my reading of the Bill as it stands, it appears to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Government intends an appeal both from a referee under an agreement and a referee under an award, that is, the Government intends that there should be appeals in respect of both those referees. In the form the amendments have been put forward to the Assembly, it would appear that there is only a right of appeal from the decision of a referee under an award by virtue of section 29, because provision for an appeal, which is subsection (3) under clause 12, does not apply to an appeal from a referee under an agreement.

Why?

It is because this section, Mr Speaker, only deals with a referee under an award. I think the Minister also said that the Court may, upon application made by a trade union or a person bound by an award, give an interpretation of an award. I cannot see any clause, if I could be enlightened on this. If the Minister can point to any clause which makes it a statutory right for an appeal from a referee under an agreement, I should be quite content to sit down. But as the Ordinance now stands, with the amendments, it seems to me that there is ---

Section 24 - "Collective agreement deemed to be an award."

Yes. I am glad the Minister raised this point. But it does not seem as of right, because the Minister has to exercise certain powers under section 37 of this Ordinance before an agreement registered under clause 23 becomes an award for the purpose of this Ordinance. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, not as of right.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain.

Yes. That is the second point. The other point is this. I was going to mention that so far as the new sub-clause (5) , which would go in as subsection 5 to section 5 is concerned, I have no comment on that, Mr Speaker. I welcome that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park referred to the amendment to section 23 of the Ordinance which substitutes the word "Court" for the word "President". Mr Speaker, I have already explained in the Second Reading speech that the purpose of this amendment is to emphasise that the act of certification is the act of the Court and not only the act of the President, and to equate the status of a collective agreement to that of an award. It will also enable proceedings to be taken to punish persons who are guilty of offences against the Court for contempt against the Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been cases where the President has in open Court certified agreements. In those cases, there have been attacks on his authority. If there was not this amendment it could be held that when certifying agreements he was not sitting as a Court, and to enable such contempts to be punishable, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be necessary for this amendment to be made to section 23. On the other point, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is, the question of an appeal lying from the decision of the referee to the Court, this is provided for by the amendment to section 39 of the Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, a collective agreement which is registered is in law the same as an award made by the Court. This amendment would allow an appeal to lie to the Court in respect both of the collective agreement which is registered and which is an award as well as in respect of an award which is made by the Court.

With respect to the Minister, I still cannot see it. My point is this. Unless the Minister acts under clause 37, which brings it within section 24, it is only then that it would be deemed an award for the purposes of this Ordinance. Under section 24: `A collective agreement, a memorandum of which has been certified by the President [in this case it would be the Court] shall, as between the parties to the agreement or any successor to, or any assignee or transmittee of, the business of a party bound by an agreement, including any corporation which has acquired or taken over the business of such a party, and any persons or trade unions upon whom it is declared to be binding by order made by the Minister under section 37 of this Ordinance, he deemed to be an award for the purposes of this Ordinance.' So it appears to me that it can only become an award for certain purposes of the Ordinance if the Minister acts under section 37. There seems to be a hiatus. If section 23 had said: `The memorandum when certified by the Registrar shalt be deposited with and registered by the Registrar and shall have for the purposes of this Ordinance the effect of an award.' or something like that, then there would have been absolutely no difficulty, and all doubts would have been cleared. But the scheme under which this Ordinance has been drafted seems to proceed on the basis that a collective agreement will remain a collective agreement as opposed to an award given by the Court until the Minister acts under section 37 of this Ordinance by virtue of the provisions of section 24. I may be mistaken. I stand subject to correction. I am not trying to be difficult.

Will the Member look at section 24 and stop at "agreement" in lines 4 and 5, and skip the phrase starting with "including" and ending with "Ordinance" - four lines down below that, and then carry on, "be deemed to be an award".

Omit from "including" up to "Ordinance"?

The words "including any corporation" up to "Ordinance" are just explanatory.

My point is this. If the Minister is, in fact, satisfied that that is so - I merely raised it because I thought there was an omission - if the Minister is satisfied, I am quite happy with it, so that persons who come under a collective agreement will be in a position to avail themselves of the right of appeal to the Court. That is all I am interested in. If the Minister says that is so. I am quite happy.

That is so, Mr Speaker, except that this is an entirely different proposition which is the extension of the operation of an award to other parties.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 - Question proposed, "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, if I may, I want to raise certain points which will clarify the position of members of the Bar. It has been the contention up till now that in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, it would not be a violation of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance if a solicitor acted on behalf either of a trade union of employees or a trade union of employers. That is accepted. Now, does the deletion of the phrase "under this Ordinance" mean that under no circumstances should a solicitor in any way advise or help either party when there is a dispute as between an employer and an employee? I ask the Minister this question, Sir, because I think it is important from the point of view of the Bar. The Bar should know exactly what the position is, because any interference with the provisions of section 25 results in an offence. I do not think we want members of the Bar to commit an offence unwittingly.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I had met the last Committee of the Bar Committee. They said that they would be happy to leave the parties to negotiate between themselves and to follow the procedures that are set out under Part III of the Ordinance. But they said to me, Mr Speaker, that they would be happy to come in if they were invited by the Minister to do so. That is provided for by the amendment that has been made to section 31 of the Ordinance, where it is provided now, as amended, that the Minister may, where he considers it possible that any trade dispute may be settled by conciliation or further conciliation, direct a person, whether engaged in or connected with the trade dispute or not, to attend at the time and place specified in the direction at a conference presided over by the Minister or such person as the Minister directs. They said that the parties would get together and follow these procedures. If there are deadlocks, then the matter is referred to the Minister, and if the Minister thinks that it is necessary to compel a compulsory conference, then they can be invited to attend. From then on they can take over. That has been actually agreed between myself and the last members of the Bar Committee. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that very often members of the Bar give assistance to trade unions in clarifying and helping them to an understanding of the various issues before negotiations are undertaken. It seems to me that by omitting the words "under this Ordinance" it is now being made unlawful both for the trade unions to consult a lawyer as to how to frame and formulate their demands, and for a lawyer to advise them. Sir, this has proved a healthy procedure, but I must confess I am more than surprised at the suggestion that the Singapore Bar Committee is amenable to the proposed deletion and the proposed prohibition of the Bar from exercising a valuable function. I cannot understand the need for preventing the Bar from giving assistance and guidance before the commencement of negotiations. I will put it no higher than this - is the Minister sure of his premise when he suggests that the Bar Committee is happy to see this amended?

The last Committee. They have now a new Committee. The previous Committee did agree that with me. They said, "Let the parties get together; let them negotiate on their own; let them comply with the provisions in Part III of the Ordinance and we would be happy to come in, if we are invited to do so by the Minister."

Mr Speaker, I would put it no higher than this, Sir, from the information which is in my possession as a member of the Bar Committee; but I would urge the Minister to look at the correspondence between the State Advocate-General and the Bar Committee, particularly the letter of the 21st of June, and he will find that in fact both Committees - both the previous and the present Bar Committees - do not consider it helpful, for the public interest, that the Bar should be excluded from assisting in the formulation of demands or understanding of the legal provisions before negotiations are commenced. I am happy to show him my file if he would like to look at it for his personal information.

Sir, I am aware of that, it was in pursuance of those representations that I held meetings in my office at which members of the previous Bar Committee were invited to be present, and the State Advocate-General was also present at those meetings. It was then suggested, as a compromise, to leave negotiations to the parties, and that they would only step in if they were invited to do so by the Minister when there was a breakdown in the negotiations.

Would the position then be this if this amendment were passed. If there was some likelihood of a dispute between an employer and his employees and if either the employer or the employees went to a lawyer and were to say, "It looks as if there is going to be a dispute. Now, will you advise me as to what I should do if a dispute occurs?", and if a solicitor should advise either party, at the request of that party, would he be committing an offence under this Ordinance? Is this amendment intended to prevent such advice being given?

The Minister will appreciate that he could not exercise the powers indicated in section 21 until, in fact, there have been negotiations under sections 16 and 17. What I am talking about, Sir, is the - how shall I say it? - pre-official negotiation period when it is sought to obtain clarification and guidance on the legal aspects. I cannot believe that the Minister should find that in any way offensive; that the Bar should guide either employers or trade unions in formulating their position or in understanding the legal position. By deleting the three words in question, Sir, he would be making that illegal. Forgive me, Sir, I have been through this before, but if I may show you. At the present moment, Sir, when negotiations are under this Ordinance, it would be improper to offer or receive any proposal or to act on behalf of a trade union except with the qualifications under section 60. And negotiations under this Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, start with section 16, when a formal notice is served on an employer, or the employer serves the notice, and there is an acceptance under section 17. When that happens, then negotiations begin under this Ordinance. Any period prior to the service of notice is negotiations outside the Ordinance. I understood the Minister to say that he would be very happy and would welcome negotiations outside the Ordinance when the two parties can really get together in a friendly spirit and bring about an agreement which they can present to the Court and have it registered. Which seems a very sensible and commonsensical approach, Sir, and I accept that he wishes that. But in fact, by deleting these three words for whose deletion there seems lo be no real reason urged, he will be preventing members of the Bar from giving any assistance in that direction.

As I have told the House just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, there were these discussions with the previous members of the Bar Committee but I do not feel very strongly about it. I would be happy to agree, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the three words remain in this section.

The position then is that the voting will be against clause 10.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 10 accordingly disagreed to. Clause 11 - Question proposed, "That clause 11 stand part of the Bill."

I rise on a point of guidance, Sir. Did I understand the Minister - and it seems that I understood him correctly - that he would welcome those negotiations between unions and employers in a healthy atmosphere of mutual respect which eventuates in an agreement which can then be registered? But am I wrong in thinking that this clause - the new proposed section 27A - makes it an offence for any person or trade union to negotiate otherwise than in accordance with Part III? So it will be impossible to have negotiations outside Part III. Sir, if my understanding is correct, then may I understand how they can have those friendly negotiations without serving notices? Perhaps the Minister would assist me?

As I have said just now with regard to section 16 of the Ordinance, it is only when, say, a trade union asks an employer for a collective agreement with regard to industrial matters as defined in this Ordinance that these procedures must be followed - the procedures of serving a notice to treat and for the parties to get together within a reasonable time, for the employer to consider the proposals, for them to bargain, until they reach a deadlock. The matter is then referred to the Commissioner for Labour and then to the Minister. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is only in respect of cases where they ask for a collective agreement, but life is not that alone in the trade union world. There are people who are dismissed every day, and in those cases, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be absurd to ask the union to comply with these procedures. In these cases they would have to meet the employer and ask him to consider the reinstatement of a dismissed employee, and if he is in any way difficult, the union can then use the procedures open to it under section 21 of the Ordinance.

It appears that there are one or two things arising from what the Minister has just said. Sir, this new clause will make it an offence for any person or a trade union to enter into negotiations in relation to industrial matters. The Minister has conveniently suggested that industrial matters may only be matters that may end up in collective agreements, but if we look at the definition of "industrial matters", we will notice that everything under the sun that goes on between an employer and the employees comes within the definition as stated in the Ordinance. It should simply mean, Mr Speaker, Sir, any person or union which enters into discussion on any matter that is defined here as "industrial matters", or any matter that affects the employee in his employment. I do not know whether the Minister was thinking of section 16 alone just now, or was he answering in reply to the Member for Anson after consideration of section 27 and the definition of "industrial matters". 4.45 p.m.

Probably there have inadvertently been some words omitted there. You will notice "a person who or trade union which enters into negotiations in relation to industrial matters". "Industrial matters", Sir, even with the present additional definition, does not cover merely collective agreements, but covers the entire relationship, whereas, if I understand the Minister aright, he wants the words "which enters into negotiations for collective agreements in relation to industrial matters". In that case, would he accept an amendment to insert the words "negotiations", "for collective agreements"?

No, Mr Speaker, Sir. The new section 27A provides that "Any person who or trade union which enters into negotiations in relation to industrial matters otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Ordinance ..."" this part of this Ordinance" refers to Part III - the collective bargaining part of the Ordinance, Sir. There is no doubt about that, Mr Speaker, Sir, and all that is required is that the procedures under this part of the Ordinance are complied with in respect of proposals for collective agreements. Question put and agreed to. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13- Question proposed, "That clause 13 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I have made my point on the Second Reading of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand that the right of appeal should operate in service for which this legislation has been framed. I am fully aware of that. But the Minister will also agree that if one gives to a Court unlimited powers - as indeed this Court has, for has not the Minister himself said that the Court can act in equity and good conscience - and, as a result thereof, the Court can over-ride existing law and substitute therefor its notions of equity and good conscience, then, in these circumstances, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Industrial Court would be more powerful than God himself for where God himself could be bound by his own decisions, the Industrial Court would only be bound by its notions of equity and good conscience. Now, Sir, such power could be abused, wittingly or unwittingly. I am not saying that there should be an appeal from his decision on points of fact, but there may be points of law involved, particularly when the President of the Court is not being assisted by a legal man, on which he could go wrong. What then could be the harm if the provision for appeal is inserted in the Bill? In order that there might not be any abuse of that right to appeal, the State Advocate-General should certify that there is a point of law on which an appeal could be moved. The Minister himself has recognised the difficulty. There do arise points of law in these courts and those points of law, under the Ordinance, the President is entitled to go to the State Advocate-General for advice. The State Advocate-General gives it, which, in effect, means that the Government does recognise that points of law do arise, even in industrial disputes. All I am asking the Minister to say is whether the Government will consider, either now in this Bill or at some future time, the question of enabling any litigant to appeal from the Industrial Arbitration Court to a Court of Law in the country on points of law. In order to prevent frivolous appeals, the State Advocate-General as I have indicated should certify. In England in respect of certain appeals there are provisions whereby the Attorney-General does certify and where a point of law is involved the case goes to a higher tribunal. Similarly, here, the State Advocate-General could be given power to certify that a genuine point of law does exist and on this point of law there could be an appeal.

Sir, I would like to add my voice to that of the Member for Farrer Park with reference to this most unusual provision. Sir, it is necessary to give power, but absolute power it is never necessary to give; and to give absolute power, Sir, is to risk a tyranny. Throughout history, Sir, it has been repeatedly proved that it is wise to give the power of appeal to higher tribunals from the natural failings and errors to which perfectly honest individuals may be subject. Sir, I would draw your attention to the possibility, for example, of the President refusing to certify an agreement for no reason at all. He does not like one of the parties: he will not certify it. There is no power for an order of mandamus to direct him to do his duty. Supposing he does not like one of the parties and he sends him to prison for contempt, because he does not like the colour of his hair. There is no power to appeal from that order. Mr Speaker, I would like you to appreciate that I recognise the validity of the Minister for Law's stand that in matters of policy and in matters of fact, the decisions of this tribunal shall not be challenged. I accept that, Sir, and I give you as an analogy, Sir, not in Singapore but in Australia, for example, the Income Tax Board of Revenue. You cannot appeal, except on points of law, because the Commissioner himself and the Board that settles the disputes are themselves experts in matters of assessing facts and the court is shut out from examining the facts, which they must accept. But to shut out the court, Sir, from deciding on points of law is to create an island of tyranny, however good the intention. I do urge upon the Minister to recognise that it is for the welfare of the courts, for the health of the courts, as well as of the country, that there should be provision permitting an appeal on a point of law, not in fact making doubly worse the existing section but improving it, by introducing provision whereby an appeal on a point of law exclusively could go to the High Court.

I should like to have an indication of what particular orders of the court should be the subject of an appeal. One matter that the Member for Anson referred to was the question of an appeal from an order punishing a contempt. Mr Speaker, Sir, the other suggestion of the Member for Anson just now was that if the President refused to certify an agreement for no apparent reason, then there was no appeal. But surely that is an absurd suggestion, Mr Speaker, Sir, If the President ever did that, there was the power to revoke his appointment. Now, in the case of the only matter which the Bar Committee thought could be the subject of an appeal - that is a punishment for contempt - no such case has yet arisen. So I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we wait for another year - let this Ordinance continue to operate - till we receive a further report from the President - and there will be now another Court, a second Court, there will be a report that we will be receiving from the Deputy President also - and when we recieve their reports, we can consider what sort of appeals we should allow from the decisions of this court. 4.49 pm. Question put, "That clause 13 stand part of the Bill:"

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 17 Abstentions, 3; Absent, 9. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Bani, S. T. Omar Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching, Chan Chee Seng. Miss. Chan Choy Siong, Lee Siew Choh. Madam. Leong Keng Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lin You Eng. Goh Chew Chua. Low Por Tuck. Goh Keng Swee. Marshall, David. Kandasamy, G. Ng Teng Kian. Lee Khoon Choy. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Kuan Yew. Rajah, A. P. Lee Teck Him. Seow Peck Leng, Lim Cheng Lock. Mrs. Mammen, John. Tan Cheng Tong. Mohd. Ariff bin Tee Kim Leng. Suradi. Teo Hock Guan. M. Ismail Rahim. Thio Chan Bee. Ong Pang Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Ramaswamy, S. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Abstentions. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Abdul Hamid bin Mohamed. Haji Jumat. Yong Nyuk Lin Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammed Akib. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Absent. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Koh, C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Lingam S. V. Ong Eng Guan. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chim. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with an aniendment: read a Third time and passed. 4.57 p.m.

I propose to suspend now. I suspend this sitting and will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.57 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate.

The original Question was, "That this House resolves that the peope 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 l961 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 proposed, 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." The debate may range over the amendment* standing in the name of the Member for Cairnhill, Item 3+ and Item 4++ of the Order Paper. *The amendment reads as follows: At end, to add 'or (c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories. +Item 3, in the names of the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown, reads as follows: 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. ++Item 4, in the names of the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Upper Serangoon, reads as follows: 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.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, to continue with my speech from last night, once again I wish to express my surprise at the attitude of some of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, especially the Member for Queenstown, who in their arguments attempted to hide their nefarious designs with flimsy pretexts. They cannot expect to hide the carcass of an elephant by covering it up with a winnowing pan, as the proverb says. Some of their arguments were based on terms such as a sell-out merger, and so on, which I think will not be expressed by people who are normal. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear now, without my having to do it, they have exposed themselves and their designs. The Member for Queenstown stated yesterday that before the Anson by-election the people had not expressed their desire to merge with the Federation of Malaya. They thought that that would strengthen their argument that Singapore is not yet ripe for merger with the Federation of Malaya. If at all, this is in line with the designs of the Communists who hope that their Party will control the whole of Malaya at which time they expect to do as they please with the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. Is it true to say that the P.A.P. have no mandate to carry out merger, as was alleged by the Member for Queenstown? In reply, permit me to ask them to open their minds wide and to try to recall their pledges before the 1959 elections were held. Let me put it to them that in 1954 when the P.A.P. was formed, the first manifesto was issued at its inaugural meeting. I will read page 4 of the Malay version thereof. This was in 1954 before the Federation of Malaya achieved its independence.

Order. Will the hon. Member read that passage again? I think he was reading too fast. There was some difficulty about translation. Will he read that passage again slowly?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak a little further from the microphone. On page 4, it says: 'Our Party opposes the new constitutions to be inaugurated in the Federation and Singapore because they still retain the essential features of colonialism. We shall use every constitutional means to get a constitution for an independent and democratic State, one which recognises the unity of Singapore and the Federation and which places the ultimate control over the affairs of this country in the hands of a Government elected by its nationals and responsible only to them.' The objectives of Petir to bring about merger with the Federation of Malaya came to life at the inaugural meeting of the P.A.P. in 1954. Then in 1958, after the Federation of Malaya achieved its independence, the Executive Committee of the P.A.P. issued its Fourth Souvenir which was passed by the General Meeting as the basis of its future policy. This is my answer to the Member's allegation. I shall read the Malay version on page 3. `(1) to end colonialism and establish an independent national State of Malaya, comprising the territories now known as the Federation of Malaya and the Colony of Singapore; to create a democratic and united Government of Malaya (here, it includes Singapore] based on universal adult suffrage of all those who are born in Malaya or who have adopted Malayan nationality.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this is our basic policy that is upheld by every loyal member of the P.A.P. and it is our duty to carry it out in the interest of our people. When the elections came in 1959, as I said yesterday, the P.A.P. had placed foremost in its manifesto the fact of wanting to strive for independence through merger with the Federation of Malaya. With these basic policies and with what is contained in this manifesto, we went to the people in 1959 and it was by virtue of this manifesto that we were duly elected by the people by a big majority and returned to this Assembly with a total vote of about 54 per cent. Mr Speaker, if the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O., who have obtained a few seats, claim that in their manifesto they have merger as a platform, it will be true, therefore, that those people who want merger number more than 54 per cent and therefore it is logical to assume that they expect their representatives to fight for merger. With this victory, Mr Speaker, Sir, would anyone say now that we have no mandate to bring about merger, as was alleged we did not have, as we heard in this Assembly yesterday? Have they forgotten this fact or have they not read the Anniversary Souvenir? They should not continue to remain in this House because they were elected in the name of the P.A.P. who promised to fight for merger, but these people have since run away from the P.A.P. Wherein lies the value of their self-respect, Mr Speaker, Sir? And this becomes a challenge and strengthens our firm desire to fight for independence through merger with the Federation of Malaya. I feel, Mr Speaker, that there are many tainted Reds who accuse us of having no mandate from the people. This is only to wreck our efforts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have known them long in the field of politics since October 1954; so I know their tactics well. When these people wish to besmirch their opponents, they will find ways and means to do so - whether it is right or wrong. So I say they cannot stand being stared at in the face. The objective of achieving merger was regarded as a long-term objective. But according to what the Member for Queenstown said yesterday, in the speeches of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, no mention was made of merger. The changes that will take place and are taking place in the political arena are not something which anybody can foretell. Merger will soon be a fact. The Member for Queenstown, in moving his amendment, stated that this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their wishes on the inevitable reunification of the two territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, this sentence which is the subject of the Member's amendment clearly shows his acceptance of the fact that reunification is inevitable. Therefore, our society is confused. Mr Speaker, Sir, if reunification is inevitable, the question then arises: what is the mode and manner of bringing about the reunification acceptable to our friends in the Federation? Mr Speaker, Sir, in all sincerity, once again, I must express my great surprise; if the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues are sincere and are truly keen to bring about the reunification of these two territories, they will surely not attempt to bring about this amendment. It is because this amendment will definitely be defeated that they have tabled other amendments and other motions. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is merely to bait the hook in order to fish in troubled waters. From this it becomes abundantly clear who are the people who waver and shift their stand; and who are the political adventurers who have exerted every effort to bring about confusion to the people. We realise and recognise, Mr Speaker, that our island State with its teeming population comprises various races of various cultures and religions. With full earnestness and sincerity, we should bear in mind these facts. We must carry out our objective in the true interest and welfare of the people to bring about prosperity and harmony. Mr Speaker, Sir, in carrying out its objective, the Government is always firm in its stand. The Government has carried out negotiations with the Government of the Federation of Malaya to get a suitable basis which will not be detrimental to any Party and which will be acceptable to the majority of the people in both territories - fully respecting our own rights and privileges. As a result of that, Command Paper No. 33 came into being. Mr Speaker, all these efforts have gone on smoothly and successfully but a few political adventurers have stepped forward to try to belittle these successes in order to wreck the merger that is to come. Mr Speaker, Sir, another problem faces us because everyone of us wants merger. The mode and manner of bringing about merger is either as has been spelt out in the White Paper Command No. 33; or a complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis with other eleven States; or is it to be that we are to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms of the Borneo territories? Do they want to reject all these three alternatives and place Singapore in jeopardy? I am truly confused, Mr Speaker, Sir, to see the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. As I see it, it is not the alternatives for bringing about merger that is the crux of the matter; it is the desire to wreck merger itself. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, if merger is wrecked, then those people who claim themselves to be fighters for democracy and fighters against colonialism are the real colonial stooges who wish to place Singapore under the feet of the colonial power. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the true position regarding these people. They would like to appear as sheep when they are actually wolves. I would like to reiterate that we will fight colonialism whether it be from the West or from the East. Mr Speaker, Sir, because of this, in the name of our sacred fight in the interests of the people in this State of ours, and in the interests of the welfare of our future generations, I would urge upon Members of this Assembly to heed this call: if you have gone astray, if you have gone off the path, pray do come back to the main road. At the same time, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to sound a word of warning. If we are true representatives of the people, fighting for the interests of the people, let us prove our sincerity. I reiterate once more, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we have taken a wrong step as individuals, the danger that may befall us would only affect our own family, but if we make a serious mistake as political leaders responsible to the people, then the danger is that the consequences will be suffered by the people as a whole. And great suffering will be borne by the generations yet unborn. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, to cut my speech short, I say once again, if you have gone off the path, do come back to the main road, but if you are truly fighting for merger, let us have proof of it. We should in all our efforts be sincere and not act like the proverbial crab in the Malay saying, which asks its baby crab to walk straight ahead while she, the mother crab herself, walks sideways. 6.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we were debating the Referendum Bill we did say that the P.A.P. was going to pose two unacceptable questions to the people of Singapore to choose. What we said before has now become true. It is a tragedy for the P.A.P. Government who, having known that the people do not want them anymore, are now trying to sell the people of Singapore to the Federation of Malaya, first conditionally, then unconditionally. Sir, it is also a tragedy for our people to have such an irresponsible Government who now force them to accept two unacceptable types of merger. Sir, the White Paper on merger of the P.A.P. was debated in this House. Since it was debated and approved in this House, it is only right and proper for the P.A.P. Government to ask the people whether or not they accept the White Paper on merger proposed by the P.A.P. but approved in this Assembly. It is only by this that the democratic right of the people can be exercised. The people and the Opposition will not blame the P.A.P. Government for its undemocratic and irresponsible attitude if it is prepared to allow our people to exercise their basic democratic right by giving them a chance to say "Yes" or "No" to the White Paper proposals. The Government not only do not allow our people to say "Yes" or "No" to the White Paper on merger, but they are also even prepared to pose another type of merger which is even worse than the White Paper on merger by which the Government can force the people to be trapped in the referendum plot. Sir, it is very irresponsible for the P.A.P. Government to ask the people to choose a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other 11 states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya. This question has not been discussed and debated in this Assembly. Therefore, it is not right and it is improper for the P.A.P. Government to bring up this question for our people to choose. Their aim is clear. They try to trap the people by forcing them to choose between the White Paper on merger and unconditional merger. By this way, they think they can trap the Barisan Sosialis. But they have mistaken the fact that the Barisan Sosialis is a political organisation. It can survive under any form of government. Sir, the interest of the people is above the interest of any political Party. If the P.A.P. believe in this principle, then it should not pose two such unacceptable questions for the people in order to trap the Barisan Sosialis, because they also trap the people who will suffer most. So the people will not forget the treacherous act which the P.A.P. Government is now doing. I want to warn the P.A.P. Government that the way they go about it can only create more trouble and more hatred for the Governments of Singapore and the Federation. When the people become anti-government, then, Mr Speaker, Sir, you know what happens.

What happens?

Sir, the people of Singapore and the Barisan Sosialis sincerely believe that a just society can be created and won over by peaceful and constitutional means. If the people are deprived of the right to say "Yes" or "No" to the proposed constitutional changes of their country by peaceful means, then what else can the people do?

By force?

The Prime Minister's motion is against normal democratic practice. The Government think that the people are sure to vote for the White Paper on merger, then the Barisan Sosialis will be finished. Sir, the matter is not as simple as that. If merger is being carried through by force against the wishes of the people, then the people will suffer under such merger. Then any political Party may stand up and fight for the abolition of the White Paper on merger, and in such a situation the people of Singapore are sure to stand behind this political Party which represents them. Then a very complicated issue is sure to arise. Sir, our amendment seeks to protect the basic right of the people that they should be given a chance to say "Yes" or "No" to the White Paper on merger. It can also prevent any unexpected disaster they may cause under such an undemocratic sell-out merger. As you are aware, Sir, under the White Paper on merger we will have to hand over our rights and privileges, which we are now enjoying, to the Federation of Malaya for nothing; Sir, for nothing. It is bad for our people. But the Government say that it is good. Since they say it is good, then let the people choose. But the Government will not want. They say if you do not want our P.A.P. type of merger, then you can choose unconditional merger. By their twists and turns they say merger is inevitable. Their simple logic is this: To die is inevitable; therefore you must die by shooting yourself with a gun; or you must die by hanging yourself with a rope. Sir, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister in his recent radio talk on merger did mention the referendum in Newfoundland. He said that the people in Newfoundland, when deciding their constitutional changes, were also not allowed to say "Yes" or "No" in that referendum. Sir, he was telling a lie to the people of Singapore, because the people there were actually given a chance to say "Yes" or "No" in a different form. They were given three questions to choose from. One, to merge with Canada; second, to become independent; and third, to remain a British colony.

That is what you want.

Sir, let us say they voted against one and two. But let us put the questions this way. One, do you want to merge with Canada or not? Second, do you want to become independent or not? But if they vote against these two, that means they want to remain in a British colony. That proves the people of Newfoundland were actually given a chance to say "Yes" or "No" to decide their future.

You have to decide now.

Sir, now the people of Newfoundland are treated equally as citizens of Canada, but in this P.A.P. type of merger the citizens of Singapore are not going to be treated as citizens of the Federation. Sir, the Government has stated that it has fought a special privilege for the people of Singapore, that is, the privilege of autonomy in labour and education, hut they have forgotten the fact that the so-called privilege is ours which we are now enjoying, it is not a special gift offered to us. This so-called special privilege of autonomy in labour and education, although in name is in the hands of the people of Singapore, in fact, is in the hands of the Government of the Federation, because the Government machinery that controls these two departments is in the hands of the Federation Government. In other words, when merger takes place conditionally or unconditionally and under any circumstances, the people of Singapore do not gain anything but they lose everything, including the basic rights of the people. We oppose the Prime Minister's motion firstly because the citizens of Singapore cannot automatically become the citizens of the Federation; secondly, because we cannot have proportional representation in the Federal Parliament; and, thirdly, because the citizens of Singapore cannot enjoy the same rights as those enjoyed by the people of Federation; and, fourthly, because the voters are deprived of the right to say "Yes" or "No" to the questions or question posed to them. This type of merger can do nothing good to the people. But it will make Singapore a colony of the Federations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened with some astonishment to what the Member for Changi said. It is obvious from his very puerile statements that he has not even understood the basic elements of what appears in the White Paper, the basic elements of the Federal Constitution and the simplest elements of parliamentary democracy. Sir, I am not going to waste the time of the House in rebutting his arguments, but I want to take this motion before the House in a very serious light and consider certain basic issues involved. Sir, it is clear from what has been said in this Assembly that the simple issue of the alternative merger proposal to be presented in the referendum is citizenship. What will happen to the citizens of Singapore under the alternative form of merger? These are important matters and I want to discuss them at length. I also want to discuss purely for the sake of argument, what happens to Singapore citizens if the Barisan type of merger with automatic conversion is implemented by some miracle. But first, Sir, let me deal with what happens to Singapore citizens after merger in accordance with the White Paper proposals. The Barisan Sosialis keep on repeating the falsehood that Singapore citizens will become second-class citizens, but they have never stated in what way Singapore citizens will become second-class citizens. They have not given one concrete instance of what rights and privileges the Singapore citizens would lose under the White Paper form of merger. We repeatedly asked them to answer this question. Each time they evaded the issue. I hope that during this debate the Barisan Sosialis Members will give a straightforward answer to this straightforward question. I say, Sir, that it is an outrageous falsehood to say that Singapore citizens will become second-class citizens after merger in accordance with the White Paper proposals. Now, if there are people who will not take my word for it, then may I refer them to what the Member for Anson has said about second-class citizens, and I quote him from Hansard of 23rd November, 1961, column 577. Sir, he said: `The leader of the Barisan Sosialis spoke of second-class citizenship, and I completely agree with the Minister for Culture that there ain't no such animal". Of course, there is not. There is no question of second-class citizenship.' Sir, that was in November 1961 and on the 28th of June, 1962, the Member for Anson reaffirmed his view in this very Assembly.

I have not changed my view.

I have never said he has changed his view, Mr Speaker, Sir, I said he has reaffirmed his view. Now everybody knows that if, in fact, Singapore citizens become second class citizens under our merger proposals, then the Member for Anson, as a lawyer, will be able to find real solid legal arguments to prove his point. The fact of the matter is that he has not done so, nor can the Barisan Sosialis present any argument or evidence to support their charge of second-class citizenship. Sir, the truth of, the matter is that Singapore citizens retain all the rights that they now possess. In addition, they acquire new rights as nationals of the new Federation. Now, let me explain. A Singapore citizen now enjoys certain basic political rights. He has a right of franchise, that is, he has a right to choose who shall govern Singapore. He has a right to stand for election, and as a citizen he enjoys certain real and concrete privileges in the State of Singapore. He is eligible to apply for low-rent houses built by the Government. His children enjoy the right to free primary education; and if they are clever, they can get free education right up to university level. As a Singapore citizen he can hold office in the Government, and there is a full range of welfare services available to him. Sir, these are the nights and privileges of a Singapore citizen as they now stand. He loses none of these rights after merger. Not only he retains these rights after merger according to the White Paper proposals, but he acquires new ones. He has a right to vote for representatives to the Central Parliament. He has a right to stand for election to the Central Parliament. In addition, he acquires the status of a national of the new Federation. As a national of the new Federation, the rights he enjoys are equal in all respects to those of the Federation citizens who will also be nationals of the new Federation. These rights are defined in various Articles of the Federal Constitution. The more important ones are Articles 8, 9, 10, 47, 119 and 123. These deal with equality before the law, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, assembly and association, freedom of religion, qualifications for membership of Parliament, qualifications of electors and qualifications of judges before the Supreme Court. I want to draw special attention to Article 8 (2) which reads: `Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.' As the Prime Minister said in the debate on merger last year, the rights of a Singapore citizen and a Malayan national will be incorporated in the revised Constitution of the Federation, and this Article will then guarantee him a status of complete equality with all other citizens. The only difference between citizens of the Federation and citizens of Singapore is that they will elect and be elected to the Central Parliament in their respective territories. Those in the Federation will vote in the Federation, and those in Singapore will vote in Singapore for representatives to the Central Parliament. Similarly, if they want to stand for election, they will do so in their respective territories. These are the only differences. There is no inequality here and therefore no question of second-class status under the White Paper merger proposals. Sir, I will now deal with what happens to Singapore citizens under complete merger for Singapore as a constituent State of the Federation. First, I wish to deal with the extraordinary claim made by the Member for Queenstown last night that complete merger of the Penang or Malacca type has never been advanced by the Barisan Sosialis. He said, and I quote the transcript of yesterday's Assembly sitting at page 41 second last paragraph. [Vol. 19 No. 1, col. 62]. He said: `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.' And then in page 42, second paragraph, second sentence [col. 63]: `The P.A.P. object is to identify the Barisan Sosialis with the unacceptable fictitious Penang type merger.' Sir, I am amazed to learn that the P.A.P. invented the Penang type of merger. The Member for Queenstown must have suffered from a temporary mental blackout when he said this, for it was he who proposed this form of merger in a letter from him to the Leader of the House dated 1st September, 1961. Now this letter has been quoted so often that I will not quote it again, but I will cite other evidence in corroboration. Sir, may I read from the Straits Times, 30th August. 1961, page 18, part of a long article on the Barisan stand on merger? And this is what the Barisan stand is as described in the Straits Times: `The way for real unification was in one of two directions: (1) an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang or Malacca. (2) an autonomous unit within a confederation with Borneo territories coming in when possible.'. So it is clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Penang or Malacca type of merger was not invented by the P.A.P. We are quoting statements straight from the horse's mouth. Now, if the Barisan Sosialis do not like the Penang or Malacca type of merger as they now pretend, then they can propose merger like any other State. Even if we regard Penang and Malacca as merely being offered as illustrations, the fact remains that the Barisan Sosialis have come out fully in favour of full and complete merger. Sir, just to make sure that we the P.A.P. will not be accused in future of inventing further fictitious types of complete merger, may I be permitted to quote several statements of Barisan leaders which prove beyond all doubt that they wanted complete merger with the Federation? My first quotation is from the typescript of the famous radio forum on the 21st September, and I quote from page six of the typescript with the Member for Queenstown saying in very forthright terms: `We come out with our stand, straightforward, one and all the time the same, namely, that we are asking for full complete merger with the Federation, with Singapore coming in as the twelfth State of the Federation. Only in that way can you call it merger.'. Now, Sir, in a letter to our Party Chairman, the Deputy Prime Minister, dated the 11th September. 1961, the Member for Queenstown said: `We note with some satisfaction that following the proposal for the constitutional future, the P.A.P. Government has shifted its stand and is now prepared to put forward complete merger as an alternative to its own proposal.'. Sir, they say that they are very satisfied that we are prepared to put forward an alternative of complete merger. So why all this fuss and bother when we are doing so now? Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown in Hansard of 20th November, 1961, column 314, said in this Assembly: `Sir, we have already stated in the most unequivocal terms that we are fully prepared to accept a complete merger, and we will only be too glad to say "yes" if the Tunku says tomorrow that we should have complete merger.'. Now, Sir, lest it be thought that the Member for Queenstown was speaking out of turn - and one must admit that he does that very frequently - I will quote what the real Party boss said on this subject. I will quote Mr Lim Ching Siong in the Straits Times dated 18th September, 1961, on his Party stand on merger. Mr Lim was quoted as follows: `Mr Lim said that recently critics had described the Panty as anti-merger and as being prepared to accept merger only as an alternative.'. Now, he asked the question: `How can anyone who likes only half-boiled potatoes accuse those who like boiled potatoes of being people who do not like potatoes? We are serious and genuine in our stand for full and complete merger. If the Federation Government says tomorrow that they will accept us as an integral part of the Federation, we will only be too glad to support it whole-heartedly.'. So now, Sir, when we offer them fully boiled potatoes, they say they never wanted it and they wanted something else. No, obviously they are up to some game. What is this game, Mr Speaker, Sir? To understand this, let us examine what the words "full and complete merger" mean. The Member for Anson has added another adjective "unconditional" merger to make the meaning even clearer. Therefore, when you talk of full and complete and unconditional merger as a constituent State of the Federation, you join in on the same terms enjoyed by any of the present eleven States. Sir, you can ask for more. The Barisan have asked for more. The Workers' Party have asked for more. But if these terms are rejected, then it is not open to them to grumble and say that they have been deprived of anything to which they were entitled. This is a proposition which is self-evident even to a schoolboy. Now, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis having come out with this clear and unambiguous demand for complete merger discovered that they had made a serious mistake and then they begin to attach conditions. Now, Sir, it is no use for them to say that they have not made a mistake, for their allies in the anti-merger campaign, the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson, publicly declared in a radio forum on the 14th of June, 1962, that the Barisan Sosialis had made a mistake. What was this mistake? The Barisan Sosialis realise ---

On a point of order, Sir, because he said that I have publicly declared, quoting me, that the Barisan had made a mistake. I said, "If they had made a mistake. . .". That was the commencement of the sentence, and I did quote it yesterday, Sir.

Sir, this matter has been gone through already, and he said that not only did they make a mistake but he said, "It is withdrawn, it is withdrawn," as he claimed on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis. Now the Barisan realise that complete merger means that the citizenship laws of the Federation must apply to Singapore. Those who were not born in Singapore will have to re-apply in accordance with the laws of the Federation.

Nonsense!

Sir, that is a most astonishing interjection, but I will deal with that point, Sir. Now, they therefore say that Singapore citizens must automatically convert to be Federal citizens and they say that Article 22 of the Federation Constitution makes this possible. Now, Sir, when we discuss what is possible and what is not possible, I think everyone will agree that it is only proper that we talk in terms of actual possibilities and not in terms of academic possibilities. And here, the position is clear beyond doubt. The Member for Anson has written to the Tunku over this question. He had received a reply from the Tunku which he is rather bashful to publish, but if he still maintains that automatic conversion of citizenship is possible, then we shall be extremely delighted and grateful if he will publish the Tunku's reply. Now, Sir, Mr Lim Ching Siong has also written to the Tunku.

For what?

But he has not dared to publish the contents of this letter or the Tunku's reply to it, if there is any reply. So these people know what the real position is. Then why do they keep on harping on automatic conversion? Sir, this subject should have been settled last November when the letters exchanged between the Prime Ministers of Singapore and Federation were tabled in the Assembly on 24th November last year. May I quote a passage from the Tunku's letter? He said: `I would like to emphasise that it cannot be assumed that the analogy of Penang or Malacca is necessarily relevant to the status of Singapore in merger with the Federation. Article 22 of the Federation Constitution makes provision for a merger of new states on terms which do not necessarily have to follow Penang and Malacca which were already members of the Federation when the 1957 Constitution came into force. If the stricter laws of other states were applied to Singapore, Singapore would be entitled to not more than twelve seats since less persons would be eligible for citizenship and consequently for franchise, quite apart from the question of weightage for rural areas.' So here we have a definitive statement on how Article 22 can be applied in the event of complete merger. Now the Barisan are not happy that Malacca and Penang citizenship laws will apply to Singapore in a complete merger. They want something more favourable and the Tunku has pointed out that the conditions of conversion may well be even stricter than those of Penang and Malacca under complete merger. So in the face of all this, this talk about automatic conversion strikes me as having more than a lunatic tinge about it. The Barisan Sosialis have added this condition with just one intention and that is to frustrate merger. They know that complete and automatic conversion is not possible, and in fact this is why they ask for it. There is one other motive which may be in their minds. By laying stress on automatic conversion into Federal citizenship, they hope to convince the people of Singapore that somehow they are missing something good by not being allowed automatic conversion. Let us examine this aspect very closely. Let us ask ourselves, what in fact would the ordinary citizen gain if automatic conversion were granted? Is he better off than under the White Paper proposals? The answer is `Yes'. He is better off in two respects - and only in two respects. First, he will be able to stand for election in the Federation general election, not only in Singapore, but also in the Federation. This is something not of great value to the average citizen who, if he wants to stand for election to the Central Parliament, can do so in Singapore. The other additional benefit the average citizen gets from automatic conversion is that he will be able to vote more easily in the Federation when he changes his address and moves there. The procedure for registration will be much easier than under the Singapore White Paper proposals. But here again the advantage is not something of fundamental importance. These are the only gains to the citizen, and I challenge the Opposition to cite any other advantage. Now, Sir, against these two advantages - the ability to vote and stand for election in the Federation and not only in Singapore - what are the losses to Singapore under complete and automatic conversion in full merger? The losses are both extensive and immediate. First, under the complete and unconditional form of merger, only those citizens who are educated, who are sufficiently educated in Malay and English can stand for election to the Singapore Assembly; in other words, large numbers of Singapore citizens will lose their present right to stand for election to their own State Assembly. Next, Chinese schools will have to conform to the Federation's education policy and eventually take the examinations either in English or Malay. Then there is no guarantee for our businessmen that Singapore's free port status will remain so long as we so desire. And 90 per cent of our taxes will be handed over to the Central Government. The Bank of China closes down and imparts of textiles and other goods from China will be severely restricted, thereby disturbing our entrepot trade. Let us therefore strike a balance sheet of profit and loss for the benefit of being able to vote and stand for election both in Singapore and in the Federation to the Central Parliament. The Singapore citizen loses so many of his existing rights and privileges, and all this is assuming that there is full merger with complete and automatic conversion of citizenship. Now, Sir, if there is no automatic conversion, then some 340,000 registered citizens, or nearly half the electorate, run the risk of losing completely all their political rights. The Barisan Socialis and the Workers' Party can say this cannot be. But the laws of the Federation are there and they will apply to Singapore if we ask for complete and unconditional merger. The Barisan Sosialis make a hue and cry about proportional representation. As regards proportional representation, this is expressly provided for in Article 116 of the Federal Constitution. If in the matter of citizenship, Singapore conforms to the laws of the Federation, then proportional representation follows automatically. On the other hand, if the Barisan want more favourable treatment than is provided for in the Federation citizenship laws, how can they sustain their claim for proportional representation? These matters were raised and discussed during negotiations between the two Governments, and the exchange of letters between the two Prime Ministers to which I have referred deals with this specific point. Our Prime Minister referred to this point in his letter and I quote: `On the other hand, the claim that Singapore citizens should automatically become Federation citizens and thereby increase the representation of Singapore was, and still is, in the view of the Federation Government too absurd to merit serious consideration.' Sir, I will now deal with the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. He wanted a third alternative posed, that is, whether Singapore should enter the Federation of Malaysia on terms not less favourable than those of the Borneo States. The Government has announced that it accepts this amendment. There is a lurking fear among some people - a fear that is actively encouraged and fostered by the Barisan Sosialis - that Singapore will somehow be treated as an inferior partner in the Federation of Malaysia. The acceptance, of this amendment by the Government, which shows that such fears are completely unfounded, makes nonsense of the Barisan's claim that we shall be relegated to a second-class status in future Malaysia. Sir, in his more ebullient mood, the Member for Anson has likened both the White Paper proposals and complete and unconditional merger on an equal basis with any of the 11 States to imperialist annexation of the State of Singapore by the Federation of Malaya. These words were uttered in the Select Committee on the Referendum Bill, If there are any persons who are foolish enough to be misguided by the Member for Anson and believe in what he says, then the third choice of equality with the Borneo States offers a way out. But I say that events will show that the White Paper merger proposals, from the point of view of advantages to the citizens of Singapore, will be found far superior to the other two alternatives. Now, Sir, the stage is set for the final act in the drama of merger and Malaysia. It was the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis who, by their mad campaign of agitation against merger and Malaysia, made merger and Malaysia come to its realisation with greater speed than otherwise would be possible. By launching a wild and indiscriminate campaign against merger and Malaysia, they have opened the eyes of everyone, including the leaders of the Federation of Malaya, to the urgency of speedier establishment of Malaysia. Whatever the form of merger the people of Singapore will choose, the end result will be the same for the Communists and their stooges. Their own mischief making has hastened the very danger to themselves which they wanted to avoid in trying to obstruct merger. We have warned these foolish and opportunistic men, who are now playing with the Communists, of the consequences that will befall them. Our warnings were given in good faith, in an attempt to save these misguided persons from the consequences which we see very clearly --- An hon. Member: Save yourself.

--- must follow upon their reckless actions. I regret to say, Sir, that these warnings have gone unheeded. Indeed they were resented and even regarded as threats in an attempt at intimidation. May I once again counsel caution and ask them to take heed of our words before it is too late? Even now it is much later than they think.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after the British return on the conclusion of the World War, they were forced by the rising nationalism unleashed in this region by the Japanese occupation to bring into existence a new national entity out of the existing separate States of Malaya. The British conveniently kept out Singapore. Singapore is left out, not because of the lack of nationalist feelings but it was thought perhaps that this island State would serve as a Gibraltar of the East - a secure military base isolated from the surrounding turbulence in the political cauldron of Asia; as Gibraltar in the West has been safe and sound despite the wake of rising nationalism in Africa and the surrounding Mediterranean countries. The history of nationalism in Malaya would have taken a different emphasis if the British had not kept Singapore out of the Malayan entity. Singapore was the hot-bed of nationalism in the Malaysian region. However, after 17 years of separation, a new chapter has opened. With the development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles the use of Singapore as a military base is doubtful. On the other hand, if Singapore takes a different political road from the rest of Malaya, it could pose a formidable challenge to the preservation of the status quo of Malaya. Sir, history cannot be reversed, and, therefore, we today bear witness to all these political debates in this Assembly intermingled with party bickerings which have highlighted the proceedings of this House. We have sought to rise above the petty squabbles that are inevitable in the conflict of party interests, so that the issues that face the people of Singapore can be placed squarely before them away and isolated from the heat of personal rancour and party differences. Sir, there would have been no White Paper nor referendum law if the British had not separated Singapore 17 years ago from the rest of Malaya. And I would say that today, with very few exceptions, all citizens of Singapore would be citizens of the Federation of Malaya enjoying the same rights and shouldering the same responsibilities. I say this, Sir, quoting no less an authority than our Prime Minister - the Prime Minister of the State of Singapore - who has been instrumental in negotiations with the Federation Government on the White Paper Constitutional proposals. Sir, let us go back to the year 1957. The All-Party Constitutional Talks with the United Kingdom had just been finalised. The Assembly had endorsed the basis for a new Constitution for Singapore. Arising from the All-Party agreement and from negotiations with the United Kingdom, the Singapore Citizenship Bill was introduced in this very House. After the First Reading, the Prime Minister, then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, sitting on the Opposition Bench, gave his approval and support of the Bill in principle, and thereafter the Bill went into Select Committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Select Committee on the Singapore Citizenship Bill, the Chief Minister, the present Member for Cairnhill, moved an amendment to clause 9 of the draft Singapore Citizenship Bill to reduce the residential qualification of applicants for Singapore citizenship from 10 years to 8 years. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer you to column 655 o, the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Bill, dated 28th September, 1957? The Member for Cairnhill, who was then the Chief Minister, said: `Sir, this ten-year residential qualification was agreed by the All-Party Conference held in February 1957. It was endorsed by the Legislative Assembly in March this year, and was subsequently accepted by the Colonial Office when the All-Panty Delegation negotiated for the new constitution. Since then, the Government has gone into this residential qualification of ten years. The All-Party Delegation has had further discussions and it felt that an amendment to eight years would be easier for administrative purposes in view of the fact that identity cards were issued late in 1948. It is for that reason that the All-Party Delegation felt that an amendment to eight years would make it easier for the administration to register all those persons who are qualified under this proposed legislation.' Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar in those days - he is at present the Prime Minister - supported the reduction from 10 years to 8 years, but based on different grounds and reasons from those of the Chief Minister. He said, in column 656: `Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, as I have said in the Assembly during the Second Reading of this Bill, if the amendment from ten to eight years does not result in our citizenship laws being further away from the citizenship laws of the Federation, then we are in favour of the amendment. As far as I can see, the amendment to eight years will make our citizenship laws more akin to those of the Federation and I support the amendment.' May I repeat again, Sir: `As far as I can see, the amendment to eight years will make our citizenship laws more akin to those of the Federation, and I support the amendment.' There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister made this decision in Select Committee in 1957 on the spur of the moment. As a matter of fact, he had given careful thought to the problem of citizenship when merger was to take place. About two weeks earlier, during the debate on the Second Reading of the Citizenship Bill, the Prime Minister, who was then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, said - may I refer you, Sir, to Hansard, column 2575, dated 11th September, 1957, about the fifth line from the top: `If we are honest about merger and the building of one nation, when we draw up our citizenship laws, we must see where it is going to dovetail into the Federation citizenship laws because the moment the principle of merger is accepted we have to discuss the conditions for it.' The Prime Minister in 1957 thought that the original proposal of qualification for Singapore citizenship of 10 years was slightly higher than that for Federal citizenship and therefore supported the move to reduce the qualification, to bring it into line with the Federal citizenship laws. Sir, the Prime Minister had in mind not only the comparative provisions of the Federation citizenship laws but he had in mind also the citizenship laws of the Commonwealth countries, because all the citizens of Commonwealth countries are called Commonwealth citizens. It seems to me that it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, as the leader of the Commonwealth, to see that no member of the British Commonwealth deviates substantially from the norm of Commonwealth citizenship laws. It appears that the Federation citizenship laws and the Singapore citizenship laws are all based substantially on the norm adopted by all Commonwealth countries and applicable to all Commonwealth citizens, with some slight variations to suit local conditions. Sir, may I now refer you to the Report of the All-Party Singapore Constitutional Conference, 1957, paragraph 49? This report was the result of negotiations between the All-Party Mission and the U.K. Government. Paragraph 49 reads as follows: `It had already been agreed at the previous Conference that a separate Singapore citizenship within the Commonwealth should be created. We recognised that it would consequently be necessary to introduce legislation in Singapore establishing the conditions and qualifications for Singapore citizenship. We agreed that the Singapore Bill should be prepared in consultation with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in view of the proposal in paragraph 51 that the British Nationality Act should be amended so that Singapore citizenship would be recognised in United Kingdom law as conferring the status of Commonwealth citizen.'. Sir, it is, therefore, my contention that Singapore citizens have acquired their citizenship rights on qualifications based on the norm adopted in other Commonwealth countries and in general conformity, as the Prime Minister in 1957 agreed, with the Federation citizenship laws. At least that was what the Prime Minister told us in 1957. Those who have satisfied the minimum qualification of 8 years in 1958 when they obtained their citizenship papers, will now satisfy a minimum residential period of 12 years in 1962. Moreover, the vast majority of those who have acquired citizenship by registration have been staying here for decades, making this island city their home and the object of their loyalty. I therefore cannot agree with the Prime Minister on the first alternative in the question to be put in the ballot paper. The main reason against the White Paper is that I cannot agree with his citizenship proposals. Let us now come, Sir, to the distortions of the Prime Minister in his opening speech on the stand of the Opposition towards merger. When the merger issue was debated in the House, the views towards merger were split into two. The P.A.P., supported by S.P.A. and U.M.N.O., supported the White Paper proposals; the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. supported the principle of automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens and proportionate representation in the Central Parliament. Under the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 all citizens of the respective States which they term State nationals, excluding Malacca and Penang, automatically became Federal Citizens by virtue of section 125 (a) of the Agreement. Section 125 (a) of the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 reads as follows :- "Citizens by operation of law --- On and after the prescribed date, the following persons shall be citizens of the Federation of Malaya by operation of law; (a) any subject of His Highness, the Ruler of any States;", which is the best analogy to our present Singapore citizenship. Now, Sir, Johore citizens then became Federal citizens automatically, Selangor citizens became Federal citizens also automatically, Perlis citizens also became Federal citizens automatically, Pahang citizens also automatically, Perak, Trengganu, Negri Sembilan and so on. Sir, why should Singapore citizens be treated differently? The Prime Minister's case for the White Paper is based on the premise that most of the citizens of Singapore by registration could not have obtained their citizenship under more stringent laws applicable in the Federation. However, his stand in 1957, as I have stated just now, was different and his views in the Select Committee on the Singapore Citizenship Bill gave one the impression that the proposed qualification in the draft Bill is higher than the Federation's qualification and therefore should be reduced. Now, Sir, I will come to the second alternative in the Prime Minister's motion. The second alternative in the ballot paper posed by the Prime Minister is vague and therefore capable of distortion. What is meant by "a complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis with the other eleven States in accordance with the Constitution documents of the Federation of Malaya"? Does the Prime Minister take it to mean that all Singapore citizens by registration, on Merger Day, would be deprived of their Singapore citizenship, and have got to re-apply separately and individually for Federal citizenship? If that is the case, Sir, the chances are that many of them could not get it, not because they are not qualified - the Prime Minister did not think so in 1957, but by administrative obstacles and delays which may be posed by the Central Government which would have the control of the administration of citizenship. I would also wish to ask the Government whether the second alternative has been the basis of negotiations between the Singapore and the Federation Governments, and if that is so, whether it has been set up in concrete proposals as the White Paper. The motion of the Prime Minister puts forward two alternatives, the first one is the White Paper proposal. The White Paper proposal is not genuine merger - and here, Sir, I can do nothing better than to quote the P.A.P.'s ally on the White Paper, the S.P.A. The S.P.A., in a sense, are more honest, and in their speeches and their party publications they have repeatedly said that the White Paper proposal is not merger but a form of closer association with the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer to page 61 [col. 93] of yesterday's Official Report. The Member for Cairnhill - about seven lines from the bottom said: `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 may I refer again to the July 1962 addition of the S.P.A. organ, page 4, which reads: 'CLOSER ASSOCIATION NOT MERGER The agreement between the Federation Government and the Singapore Government is not merger. It is a form of closer association along the lines of a Confederation. We support it as a first step towards the eventual merger and the sooner we all become Malayan conscious and behave as Malayans the sooner will merger take place.' And the article continues on: `The simple unadulterated truth is that because the agreement reached is not merger but a form of Confederation, the citizens of Singapore shall remain as citizens of Singapore and the citizens of the Federation shall remain citizens of the Federation.' In other words, Sir, what the S.P.A. is trying to drive at is that only in a genuine merger will Singapore citizens and Federal citizens be converted into one common citizenship. Therefore, based on the S.P.A.'s arguments, from the S.P.A., a Party which supports the White Paper of the P.A.P. Government, the second alternative in the motion of the Prime Minister cannot be merger because then all Singapore citizens and all Federal citizens shall come together under one common citizenship. Then, Sir, what could this second alternative in the proposed ballot paper mean but the deprivation of Singapore citizens by registration from the present citizenship they now have, and becoming stateless persons, which means half of the present 624,000 Singapore citizens would become stateless persons. Sir, of course, the P.A.P. can argue that this is S.P.A. distortion either by the Member for Cairnhill in his speech or by the S.P.A. organ of what is meant by merger and of what is the constitutional relationship between Singapore and the Federation as envisaged in the White Paper proposals. Therefore, Sir, I shall quote from the P.A.P. organ itself, the Petir. In the issue dated 31st May, 1962, page 5, the Petir said `The present merger proposals are but steps towards full integration and under conditions satisfactory to all concerned. Nobody believes that these merger proposals are final and absolute.' Sir, what does this clause mean? It means and admits that the White Paper is only a step towards full integration. Does it not also mean, Sir, that full integration is therefore the ideal objective of the people of Malaya which includes Singapore, but that at present it is not possible to achieve it? In other words, it is not possible to have a common citizenship until conditions are ripe. In the same page the Petir said: `This demand for complete integration would be unacceptable to the Federation leaders at the present time.' Mr Speaker, Sir, what is meant by this article is that the ideal is complete integration which at present the Federation leaders are not prepared to give. Therefore, Mr Speaker, the second alternative in the Prime Minister's motion can only mean something else but not the complete integration which we understand, on the complete integration which the P.A.P. organ understands - the P.A.P. organ, the Petir, as different from the P.A.P. Government. The first alternative, which is the White Paper, is unacceptable to the people. The second alternative has never been put forward even in broad generalities as the White Paper proposals. It is vague, and therefore can lead itself to all sorts of distortions, manipulations and interpretations and is therefore equally unacceptable. Proposal one is unacceptable and proposal two is even more unacceptable. The people of Singapore are not prepared to give a blank cheque to the second proposal posed by the Prime Minister. Sir, on the first proposal, the Government is singing high praises for the White Paper. The Prime Minister said that under complete integration - and this was repeated just now by the Minister for Finance - many of the Assemblymen in this Chamber would not be eligible to stand for election as there would be no multi-lingualism. Mr Speaker, Sir, are they then appealing to these Assemblymen to support the White Paper? I am sure, Sir, if such personal sacrifices are necessary, they will be prepared to rise to the occasion in the interest of the people. The so-called autonomy in education, and labour is more imaginary than real. It is my view that in matters under the control of the Central Government - either absolute control, or under concurrent powers - such as the control of defence and internal security, of law and the machinery of government, of financial and industrial policies, and so on, a Central Government can bring the Singapore State Government down to its knees if the Singapore State Government refuses to accept the "advice" and "direction" of a Central Government on matters over which the State Government is supposed to have exclusive jurisdiction, for instance, education and labour. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is my analysis of the so-called autonomy in education and labour. The right to collect only 75 per cent of the revenue to administer the respective subjects like education and labour is similar or akin to a P.A.P. branch collecting 75 per cent of its membership dues itself in order to defray branch expenses on behalf of the Central Executive of the P.A.P.; because Mr Speaker, Sir, financial, economic, fiscal and taxation policies would be decided under the White Paper proposals by the Central Government. The Singapore State Government would not be able, for instance, to exercise a flexible fiscal and economic policy to cope with its special economic and social responsibilities. For instance, we would have the responsibilities of administering health and social security, but without the corresponding power and the means to discharge our obligations to the people of Singapore. As for special privileges to Malays, Sir, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech yesterday, we are not against them, so long as they are within reasonable limits and are for the benefit of the under-privileged Malay masses. What we oppose is to keep a small privileged group of Malays and ignore the interests of the poor Malay masses. Sir, let me now come to the third alternative put forward by the S.P.A. which is acceptable to the Government. This third proposal, Sir, is equally unacceptable to the people of Singapore. It is vague and the same argument against the second alternative applies equally well to the third proposal. It could be interpreted in the same way, as I see it, as the so-called Penang and Malacca type of merger, and the people would be asked as in the second proposal to give a blank cheque for it. It is my opinion, therefore, that the second and third proposals could be interpreted to mean something worse than the White Paper proposals. The Minister for Finance stated at the conclusion of his speech that the White Paper proposals on merger are far superior to the two other proposals. He has admitted it. Therefore, Sir, the Government's tactic of putting alternatives more unacceptable than the White Paper still stands and has not changed. Sir, the purpose of this motion is to seek justification in the eyes of the world that the referendum which is soon to come is a democratic and an honest referendum and that the White Paper proposals have been approved by a majority of the voters by including all blank votes as pro-White Paper votes. The alternatives posed in the Newfoundland and Uganda referenda were genuine alternatives. Let me illustrate, Sir; if the people of Singapore are asked whether they prefer potatoes or bread, they are not genuine alternatives, because the people of Singapore are divided into those who eat bread and those who eat rice. Similarly, Sir, if the people of Ireland are asked whether they prefer rice or bread, they are not genuine alternatives, because the alternatives there would be potatoes and bread. Sir, if the Government were sincere in thrashing out the genuine alternatives in the merger issue, they should have long ago convened an All-Party Conference, as it was done during the 1957 constitutional talks; the result then was unanimity and everybody was satisfied. Sir, it is still not too late for the Government to do so. The motion of the Prime Minister only serves as an attempt to win the argument on merger over the Opposition Parties who are against the White Paper proposals and that, Sir, will fail. Nothing arising from this debate could alter the Government's basic tactical position, which is to put proposals or alternatives more unacceptable than the White Paper proposals. And you have no better proof than from the horse's mouth of the Minister for Finance. Any genuine alternative could not be accepted by the Government. Therefore, Sir, by putting in more alternatives, more proposals or amendments which are acceptable to the Government, they would only be serving to confuse the issue at stake. The issue is that the people should be asked to accept or reject the White Paper. If that is the question to be posed, there would be no doubt about the outcome. But as things are, the Government would push through this sham referendum and steam-roller its White Paper proposals through. What should the people do in the circumstances? If the voter does not go and vote, he loses his vote in future elections. If he tears his vote or defaces it, he will go to gaol. If he writes his name and address, he is afraid of being intimidated. Sir, if he throws in a blank vote it would be considered a pro-Government vote. But faced with these possible courses of action, our stand is that the people should throw in blank votes, which is the least of the evils. If the blank votes are more than the votes for the White Paper, then the Government would keep quiet. But if the votes for the White Paper exceed the blank votes, not for any reason but merely because the voter is faced with impossible alternatives, and in desperation throws his vote for the White Paper proposals, then we may be giving Government the opportunity to announce separately the number of votes supporting the White Paper and thereby mount a propaganda campaign to convince the world that the majority of Singapore citizens have supported the White Paper and have done so without counting the blank votes.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Anson stated in this House yesterday that the Federation Constitution makes provision for state nationals to become Federal citizens from the moment it took effect. Why then, he asked, could not state nationals in Singapore automatically have Federal citizenship under Article 22 of the Federation Constitution, which is the article providing that whenever any new territory is admitted into the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, the Federation Parliament may by law determine what persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates for such persons to be citizens. He further argued that it was not the spirit of the Federation Constitution to bar state nationals, whether of the Federation or the State to be admitted, and to put technicalities in their way would be a fraud, in view of the fact that since 1957 there has been accorded a new status of Singapore citizenship. Sir, he knew that in this House on the 22nd of November, 1961, Hansard, Volume 15, columns 474, 475 and 476, I had taken the trouble to explain the distinction in the Federation citizenship laws between those who were born in any of the territories of the Federation before Merdeka Day and who were not qualified to be Federation citizens by operation of law under the Constitution, and the state nationals and others who were qualified to be citizens by operation of law. Sir, I referred on that occasion to the provisions of section 124 of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, and section 125 of the Federation of Malaya Agreement (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952, and pointed out that a person born in Penang or Malacca, which was referred to in the Agreement as British Settlements, became Federation citizens by operation of law on the operative date of the Federation of Malaya Agreement. 1948 - that is the 1st of February, 1948. Sir, I also pointed out that a person born in any part of the Federation outside Penang and Malacca did not become a citizen by operation of law unless (1) he is a subject of the Ruler. Subjects of the Ruler are defined as aborigines, Malays and persons naturalised as subjects of the Ruler; and (2) if he is a British subject or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and one of his parents was born in any of the territories of the Federation. I also mentioned that the Federation of Malaya Agreement (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952, deleted two earlier provisions in the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, providing that (1) persons born before, on or after 1st of February, 1948 (i.e. the appointed date of the Federation of Malaya Agreement) in the Federation who habitually spoke the Malay language and conformed to Malay customs and (2) other persons born before, on or after the 1st February, 1948, in any of the territories of the Federation, both of whose parents were born in any of the territories of the Federation and were before or at the time of their birth or thereafter became permanently resident in any territory of the Federation, were also citizens by operation of law. Sir, by the deletion of these two earlier provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, a person who was born in any of the territories of the Federation outside Penang and Malacca could only become a citizen by operation of law if he was a subject of the ruler, or if he was a British subject, or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and one of his parents was born in any of the territories of the Federation. To that extent the more lax provisions obtaining from the operative date of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, for the grant of citizenship by operation of law were tightened up by the provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement (Amendment) Ordinance. 1952. Sir, before Article 16 of the Constitution came into force on Merdeka Day, the 31st of August, 1957, those who were born in any of the other territories outside Penang and Malacca and who were not qualified for citizenship by operation of law were required to make an application for Federation citizenship and had to satisfy the requirements laid down in the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948. These requirements were those of residence and an adequate - not an elementary - knowledge of the Malay language. On or after Merdeka Day, under Article 16 of the Constitution, any person who is born in the Federation before Merdeka Day and who is not qualified to be a citizen by operation of law must make an application to the Federation Government to be registered as a citizen and is entitled to a grant of citizenship if he satisfies the Federation Government, (a) that he has resided in the Federation during the seven years immediately preceding the date of the application for a period amounting in the aggregate to not less than five years; (b) that he intends to reside permanently in the Federation; (c) that he is of good character; (d) that he has an elementary knowledge of the Malay language. Where citizenship is granted by way of registration to those born in the Federation before Merdeka Day under Article 16, even if all the requirements for citizenship by registration are satisfied, citizenship can still be refused and there is no appeal from such refusal to the courts. The obvious inference to be drawn from a study of this legislation is that there must be a large number of Indians and Chinese who are born in the States of the Federation outside Penang and Malacca before Merdeka Day who are still not qualified under Federation citizenship laws for an automatic grant of Federation citizenship. The important consideration is that unlike those born in Singapore, these persons who were born in the associated States of what became, on the 31st of August, 1957, the independent sovereign State of the Federation of Malaya would be in a stronger position to claim automatic citizenship rights than those born in Singapore by virtue of this association. Sir, a claim for automatic citizenship rights for the local born in Singapore would, in effect, be a claim that they should be granted more favourable terms than the terms accorded to those who were born in the associated States of the Federation outside Penang or Malacca before Merdeka Day and who are not eligible for an automatic grant of citizenship. In this connection, Sir, I would like to repeat what I said in this House on the 22nd of September, 1961, during the debate on the White Paper proposals, Hansard, Volume 15, 22nd of November, columns 479 and 480. I quote: `Even if we were able to persuade the Federation Parliament to grant more favourable terms to our local-born by asking that they should be accorded the same citizenship terms as those accorded to persons born in Penang and Malacca under the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, as amended by the (Amendment) Ordinance of 1952, could this not be construed to be selling out the political rights of the larger number of Singapore citizens who have acquired Singapore Citizenship by residence? And, Sir, if the Federation Parliament has not granted automatic Federation Citizenship to persons born in the associated States of the Federation, outside Penang and Malacca, would it be reasonable to expect the Federation Parliament to grant automatic citizenship rights to persons who have only acquired citizenship rights in Singapore by residence?' Sir, I am glad the Member for Anson has at last acknowledged that there can be no question of Singapore citizens automatically becoming citizens of the Federation, because there are no provisions for such automatic transformation of citizenship in the Federation Constitution. He agrees that the question of automatic conversion of citizenship on merger is a matter for negotiation with the Federation Government. He has made certain proposals to the Tunku on automatic conversion of citizenship on merger, but in spite of a challenge in this House, he has not dared to publish the Tunku's reply. Sir, it is a self-evident proposition that politics is the art of the possible, and it is also a self-evident proposition that it takes two to make a bargain. If it can be shown from a careful study of the Federation Constitution that it would not be practical politics to expect the Federation Government to grant more favourable terms to all Singapore citizens than it is prepared to grant to its own local-born, then any contention that an uncompromising demand for automatic conversion should be pressed as a condition for merger can be dismissed as a dishonest claim advanced for the purpose of frustrating merger. Sir, the position in Singapore is very unlike that in the Borneo territories where the local-born out-number the residents and where the greater proportion of the local-born are indigenous. An automatic grant of Federation citizenship in the situation obtaining in the Borneo territories does less violence to the application of Federation citizenship laws. But the irony of it is that the people of Borneo themselves should want merger with a greater degree of local autonomy than that accorded to the constituent eleven States of the Federation. The Member for Anson also referred to the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1962 which materially altered the citizenship provisions of the Federation Constitution. He inquired if Singapore should be asked to opt entry into the Federation on a basis much worse than that of any of the other eleven States which entered in 1957, because of these additional provisions of the 1962 Constitution (Amendment) Act. Sir, of course, this is a rhetorical question and would be the sort of question which one who did not want merger would ask. Article 14 of the Federation Constitution provided that every person born within the Federation on or after Merdeka Day would be a citizen by operation of law. The effect of the amendment is to modify the principle of the jus soli, the refusal of an automatic grant of Federation citizenship by operation of the law to persons born in the Federation on or after Merdeka Day, neither of whose parents are citizens of the Federation and neither of whom is a permanent resident therein. Persons born in the Federation before this amendment to Article 14 came into force and persons who would as a result of this amendment not be a citizen of any country are expressly excepted. There were formerly two exceptions to the principle of the jus soli which granted citizenship by operation of law on or after Merdeka Day. These were in respect of the child of an envoy of a sovereign power to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the child of an enemy alien born in any place under enemy occupation. This constitutional amendment added a third exception, namely, a child born after the coming into operation of New Clause 2 of Article 14, neither of whose parents was a citizen of the Federation and neither of whom was a permanent resident therein. The Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1962 also repealed Article 17 of the Constitution which authorises registration as a citizen on the grounds of long residence starting before the 31st August, 1957. This amendment was made to conform to the usual practice that citizenship should be obtained by naturalisation and not by registration, by all those who claim to acquire citizenship on the ground that they have made their permanent homes in the Federation. The Federation is an independent sovereign State, and is free to make such laws as it deems fit in respect of its own citizens. If it is contended by the Member for Anson that this whittling down of the jus soli in respect of those born in the Federation on or after Merdeka Day would also be applicable to Singapore citizens, if there is merger with automatic conversion of citizenship, does he not advance this argument for the purpose of opposing merger? Of course, his purpose in referring to this amendment to Article 14 of the Federation Constitution is to pretend that any form of merger for Singapore after this amendment will be on less favourable terms than the terms of merger accorded to the eleven States of the Federation in 1957. But this is not a rational argument as this modification of the jus soli is now in force in all the States of the Federation. Even if Singapore is to be merged with automatic conversion of citizenship, it could have no legal entitlement to more favourable consideration in respect of the jus soli. It is quite clear from what the Member for Anson has said in respect of the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1962 that he opposes merger and that his contention that the White Paper proposals should be improved and a common citizenship granted so that the majority of the people would make common cause in an effort to achieve integration with the Federation on a basis of common citizenship, is just a smoke-screen to hide the hypocrisy of the stand. Like the Barisan Sosialis he opposes any form of merger, but he has not got the courage to say so openly. Sir, we have quoted many examples to show that there are good precedents for placing a choice of questions to the electorate on the question of merger which would take account of what the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim have said should be the basis on which there should be a merger. I do not propose to repeat what has been said in this debate. There is no good reason why the White Paper proposals should be the only proposals to be placed to the electorate in the coming referendum. I ask the House to reject the amendment to the Prime Minister's motion moved by the Member for Queenstown. 7.43 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government's constitutional arrangement is unreasonable. This has been known by the people of Singapore and flow the true facts have become clarified, that is, the P.A.P.'s merger plan is a sell-out. Today the attitude of the people towards the P.A.P. is not only centred on the question of merger. On the other hand, whether the P.A.P. Government has got the right to govern, it has expressed its doubts, because its so-called phoney merger plan cannot be covered by its excuses. They shout the slogan of independence through merger and the coming of prosperity, but all these schemes have been exposed by the people and the interests of the people of Singapore will be subordinated to those of the Federation Government, and the people of Singapore do not have their basic citizenship rights, equal citizenship rights. It is another kind of colonial domination - this kind of merger whereby hundreds of millions of dollars from taxation and revenue will be handed over to the Federal Government. Once again this has exposed the P.A.P. scheme and it has created doubts in the people's minds. Their merger scheme is only for a few leaders in the P.A.P. They have got the S.P.A. to support them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the national referendum should be used to ascertain the views of the people on the questions on the merger proposals passed by this House. The people should have the right to accept or reject any proposal which is passed by this House. That is the true meaning of a national referendum. That is why the Government should pose only its White Paper proposals to the people and not two questions. These White Paper proposals were negotiated by the Singapore Government and the Federation, and they were passed by this House with the support of the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. last year. Since the P.A.P. has the support of the Right-wing Party of the Assembly for its Command Paper No. 33, this has made the people of this State more confused. Therefore, the P.A.P. leadership, in order to save the political situation, let the people decide on the referendum issue. Now we can see that the Prime Minister has brought up two questions to let the people choose. He has brought up this proposal as posed in Paper Command No. 33. He does not let the people say yes or no to this White Paper Command No. 33. His intention is to confuse the people. We have already made all-out efforts in this House to caution the Government not to suppress the people into acceptance; otherwise they will have to face the consequences of their act.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since this motion was brought up we have debated it for two days. We have been very disappointed. The Marxist and Leninist followers have defended their arguments by means of logic. Let me now, as an outsider, use common sense to talk about the purpose of their amendment. Everything is divided into two aspects. One is constructive; the other is destructive. From the basis of the question, we can reach the aim we want to achieve. Let me talk about the factors involved in the constructive aspect. First of all, we must understand where the basic question lies. Secondly, what should be our objective and the shape of our objectives. Who is more adamant in pushing through the proposals? On the contrary, if their arguments are based on the destructive aspect, then it would be dishonest. You want to find the true cause of the matter and not to find fault. We should not destroy in order to achieve our purpose. In the two days' debate we have seen more clearly the purpose of the Member for Queenstown's amendment. There is no honesty in the amendment. To put it simply, the main purpose is not as appears in the amendment. Now let me explain the balance of interests in the matter. We know that if a person wants to corrupt or destroy a matter, it is easy for him. Conversely, if you want to do it from a constructive point of view and you want to prevent a thing from being destroyed and not to be changed in its appearance, it is not an easy thing. For example, if we have a white cloth and we want to dirty it purposely, we can do it within a second. If we want to destroy a very grand building, that process will not require more than two seconds. If we want to restore it back to its original appearance, it is a difficult and long process and a lot of methods have to be adopted in order to do it. Let me talk further. Today the merger between Singapore and Malaya - it is just like a foetus not yet born. Those people with malicious intentions will wish that the foetus is a female. This is not correct and it is malicious. In our understanding, if the foetus is born, whether it is complete or not, wholesome or not, it will depend on whether the parents are healthy. This is a point of view. From here, we can understand that in this amendment it has been stated very clearly that its purpose is to achieve the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya through merger. The first thing is through the White Paper method, that is, preserving the labour and education autonomy. The other method is unconditional merger and Singapore becoming a component part of the Federation as any one of the other 11 States of the Federation. That is the ---

Order. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present. Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present. 8.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now I was talking about the proposal (b). I was talking about the second point, i.e., about the forms to be chosen to achieve merger between Singapore and the Federation. Earlier I also said that what we want now is to find out in which form our purpose should be achieved. But it is a matter for regret that the Barisan Sosialis have been beating about the bush and saying that this motion could not achieve their wishes. In the course of the debate in the past two days, we have been hearing only such phrases as "sell-out", "undemocratic". But the truth will come out in due course. The Barisan Sosialis have not substantiated their arguments. They have not advanced any concrete evidence to support their arguments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to criticise a Bill, that is something you can do in different ways. Let me give an example. For instance, a girl; a person criticises a girl; from a constructive point of view, he can say the girl is beautiful and can even describe her as a fairy or goddess. But if a person is malicious, he can very well describe that girl as a devil, or some kind of goblin, or a witch. Now, to take the first person; his criticism is more or less with good intentions. But the latter one is not so. That is why in respect of our proposals, the first question posed is to ascertain the views of the people and to get their constructive views. But as for the second person mentioned, his intention is to try to destroy, to create misunderstanding, hatred and a bad impression in the minds of the people, and to try to confuse and mislead them, so as to achieve their own ends. Libel and slander can, perhaps, prevail for a short period, but truth will ultimately triumph. We can also say that truth will never be killed or destroyed. We can positively say that in 1959, we had a mandate from the people. That is why today we have a duty to fulfil this mandate from the people. What we are concerned with is the livelihood and welfare of the people. We do not mind the slanderous statements made of the Party and of its members. That is how responsible citizens should behave. Here, let me quote a Chinese poem to explain our intention. It is written by Wen Tien Hsiang, a Chinese poet. It says: `In one's life, death is always waiting. We should bare our hearts to show our intentions clean.' That should be our intention and our attitude. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the inception of our Party, we have repeatedly stressed that our Party is a non-Communist Party. In the present situation, our political opponents have been saying that we are anti-Communist. If we have been anti-Communist, then it must be so because we want to defend ourselves. Everybody has the right to defend himself especially when it concerns the interests of the country. Lastly, let me caution those who play with fire. There is a saying that these who play with fire will be burnt by fire. I would especially like to remind the Member for Anson of this. I recall that he asked a question in this House about the refugees fleeing into Hongkong from m China. He appeared to be very concerned about them. I would say that we are not the comrades of these refugees. We are not concerned with events that take place in China because these are all internal matters of Communist China and have nothing to do with us. Our duty is to protect and to take care of our people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is another point which we cannot understand. The Member for Anson, in the one hand, has strongly attacked the Communists in this House and, on the other hand, he has been supporting the people who are pro-Peking. That is something which is very difficult to understand. What we are concerned with today is the security of our State. We should not let the same tragedy which happened in Communist China to happen here. Before concluding, let me quote a moral from Aesop's Fables to remind the Member for Anson, "Do not carry a frozen snake in your bosom." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regards the survival of the Member for Anson, we do not care. What we care for is the interest and the livelihood of the people of Singapore. That is very important. 8.16 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the motion tabled by the Prime Minister, we can prove the dishonesty of the P.A.P. Government. This also negates the propaganda about the merger plan in the past year. All this completely exposes their dishonesty. We have also proved that the P.A.P. do not dare to put their merger proposals to the people. The P.A.P. merger proposals alone will not be submitted to the people for their decision. Instead the Government will pose two questions for the people to choose. Apart from the original White Paper merger proposals, the other question is the so-called unconditional merger. But may we ask what is meant by the phrase "unconditional merger"? Has any detailed plan on this unconditional merger been submitted to this House for a decision? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the statements and speeches of the Ministers and the Prime Minister, the so-called unconditional merger will be worse than the White Paper merger proposals proposed by the Government. We would not only not have autonomy in labour and education, but, according to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Law, half the non-local born citizens of Singapore would lose their citizenship rights under this so-called unconditional merger. This is a very shameful act on the part of the P.A.P. Ministers and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the other Government Ministers have found out that the people of this country will not accept their White Paper merger proposals. That is why they have to think of all sorts of ways and means to try and distort the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the merger issue. Our demand is for a real merger, an equal merger, under which the 624,000 citizens of Singapore will automatically become Federal citizens. And the Government Ministers say that this demand is not reasonable. They have even spoken on behalf of the Prime Minister of Singapore saying that he cannot accept the automatic conversion of the 624,000 citizens into Federal citizens. The Prime Minister has said that the worth of the citizenship rights of the non-local born citizens is only one dollar. The so-called Prime Minister, who represents the people of Singapore, is really insulting the people of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leaders have not only distorted the stand of our Party, but they have also insulted the reputation of the 624,000 citizens of Singapore. In spite of the fact that they were elected by the people to become the Prime Minister and Ministers, we can see very clearly from their past behaviour and performance that their continuation in office is illegal. All the actions and the measures taken by the Government in the past will not become valid. The P.A.P. were elected by the people, but today they have considered that the citizenship right of the people is worth one dollar and that the people are not qualified to become Federal citizens. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the constitutional arrangements before us today have been proposed by the PAP. Government. They are embodied in the White Paper merger proposals which were passed by this House sometime ago. Therefore, the people of Singapore should have the right to say "yes" or "no" to the constitutional arrangements proposed by the Government. The question to be posed to the people should be the White Paper merger proposals put forward by the P.A.P. We hope that the Prime Minister will not bring forward another proposal-the so-called unconditional merger. They should not pose another question so that when the people go to vote, they will not be able to say "yes" or "no" to the questions posed. Their blank votes will be construed as votes in favour of the Government's merger proposals. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the P.A.P. and their Ministers are not honest. They will be malicious if they try to pose these questions. These questions are posed for the sake of a few Ministers. We strongly oppose this sort of national referendum in which two questions are to be posed to the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier on we have heard the Prime Minister say in his speech that he also accepted the amendment proposed by the Member for Cairnhill. This amendment is such that when the two questions are posed, there will be a third alternative question. That is, the people will be asked to choose another alternative question. That is "to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories". From the Prime Minister's acceptance of the Member for Cairnhill's amendment, we can once again expose their behaviour and their motives. We do not know at present what are the merger conditions for the three territories in Borneo. The Government is now ---

Order. 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 proposed, 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."

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I talked about the Prime Minister accepting the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill regarding the proposal for merger. The Government's action was completely dishonest and showed their true colours too. I want to point out to the Member for Cairnhill that he should not think that by bringing up this amendment he can confuse the people in regard to the proposals for merger. The merger stand of the Barisan Sosialis does not permit any distortion by other people. In the past, the P.A.P. Ministers and the Prime Minister, and the P.A.P. Political Bureau used all measures and made all efforts to distort our stand. The Prime Minister even went to the extent of saying that in his merger proposal, the meaning of "citizen" and "national" is the same and that a citizen enjoys the same rights as a national. This has already been clearly seen by the people, and now they are trying to distort our stand. Conversely, although the Ministers and the Prime Minister continue to distort our stand, they have made the people understand more about our stand. Their efforts to distort our stand have not had any good result. Here I would like to reiterate the Barisan Sosialis stand. The people of the two territories should have equal rights, that is, when merger comes, and all the citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. Secondly, there should be proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. If these conditions are not acceptable to the Federation, we suggest a closer relationship between the two territories, that the people of Singapore should reach a basis of confederation. This is the stand we have been advocating to the people of Singapore. We do not allow anybody to distort this stand. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Law, in his speech, quoted many laws passed by the colonial governments to show that if merger were to take place, the people of Singapore would not automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. If that is the logic of the P.A.P., then we say that the P.A.P. leaders have completely regarded the colonial laws as true, and in doing so they have acted contrary to the people's wishes. The Minister for Finance also repeated in his speech that the merger plan was very good. At the same time, he also advocated the unequal citizenship rights in the merger proposal. In the past, we have pointed out that the P.A.P.'s merger proposal, if it were to be realised, would make the people of Singapore second-class citizens, i.e., in the arrangement of the P.A.P. type merger, the people of Singapore will have only the right to get the same passport as that of the citizens of the Federation and will also enable the Federation Government to conscript our youth. Can the citizens of our State move freely in the country? Can the people of Singapore under this type of arrangement have the right to apply for lands in Johore for cultivation? Can the unemployed in Singapore have equal opportunities of getting jobs as the citizens of the Federation? These are questions which cannot be replied to by them. The Finance Minister just now only repeated his past statements, but he has not told us whether after merger we will have common benefits and rights as the citizens of the Federation of Malaya. These are questions which they cannot answer. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we also heard the Government Parliamentary Secretaries saying that we have gone against the original merger stand of the P.A.P. We do not know what they were pointing at. For example, in the past we have pointed out the reason why the P.A.P. has gone down to such a low level now. The main reason is that the P.A.P. has only adopted a policy planned by a few leaders in the P.A.P. We know there is no democratic discussion in the P.A.P., and what a good merger plan is like. From the announcement of the Member for Bras Basah when she left the P.A.P. we can see this. She said, "I do not want to think of one thing any say another thing as I did and had to do when I was in the P.A.P." The P.A.P. Members say things without any conscience. The Member for Bras Basah pointed out very clearly in her announcement that there were only a few leaders in the P.A.P. who had any say in policy matters. Now, the P.A.P. has come down to this low level and yet these few leaders still have not repented and listened to the people. So we can say that the Prime Minister is a clever person. The Minister for Law is one who knows the law. They should not use the law itself to obliterate their future. Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past the Prime Minister has reminded Members of this House that when playing games one should keep to the rules of the games. But today the P.A.P. Government has entirely acted against such rules. In other words, the motion before this House today is completely contrary to the spirit of democracy and the Constitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, on the 24th of September last year, at a Press conference held at Radio Singapore, promised that the people of Singapore could express their views on the P.A.P.'s White Paper on merger in a referendum. But today the Prime Minister has entirely forgotten about his promises made in the past. Instead, he asks the people of Singapore to choose from the three unacceptable proposals, one containing the P.A.P. type of White Paper on merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, in moving his motion yesterday, said this. Let me quote what the Prime Minister said yesterday - this is the Nanyang Siang Pau of the 10th of July: `When faced with the White Paper proposals and a complete merger like Penang and Johore and another merger proposal not inferior to the merger conditions for Borneo territories as their choices, the people would definitely choose the White Paper on merger in an overwhelming majority.' Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the intrigue behind the Prime Minister's motion. That is the way he has set a trap in order to let the people fall into it. From this quotation of the Prime Minister, we can fish out the motives and the scheming of the Prime Minister in this motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, the Prime Minister has mentioned the White Paper merger proposals. I do not intend to deal with the contents of the White Paper, but I would like to point out to you that Paper Command 33, the constitutional arrangements arrived at by the P.A.P. Government and the Federation Government, was introduced to this House on the 15th November and the House was asked to decide on this White Paper arrived at by the Governments of the two territories. Later, with the support of the S.P.A. fellow travellers, these White Paper proposals were approved by this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, before the passage of this White Paper, the P.A.P. Government had exerted their utmost in giving wide publicity to their White Paper proposals. The Ministry of Culture was used as propaganda machinery for the P.A.P. to publicise the White Paper proposals in four languages. The Ministry of Culture printed thousands and thousands of pamphlets on the White Paper on merger for distribution to many people. The travelling vans of the Ministry of Culture went to various places to distribute these pamphlets. From this we can know very clearly that the people of Singapore are rather clear about the contents of this White Paper on merger. The Government have achieved the purpose they want in their propaganda activities. But today, we see that the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister have not the guts to carry out what they promised the people on 24th September last year, that is, to let the people decide whether they want to accept this White Paper on merger. The P.A.P. think that autonomy in labour and education, as embodied in the White Paper, would receive the support of the majority of the workers and the Chinese in Singapore. The Government have also made use of the State Advocate-General to issue statements to say that the terms "citizen" and "national" are the same in meaning, but all these propaganda activities have failed the P.A.P. because the people of Singapore have come to know the actual contents of the White Paper on merger, and that is why everywhere the people are opposing the conditions as embodied in the White Paper. The P.A.P. leadership have also got wind of this information and they have come to realise that if they were to put this White Paper on merger to the people to decide, then it would be like an earthen cow dropped into the ocean never to come back again. It has become a foregone case for them. That is why in introducing the motion the Prime Minister has not posed only one question to the people. Instead he has proposed two questions: one is a complete and unconditional merger on an equal basis as Penang and Malacca, which he has turned into the present (b) proposal. Now, our stand on merger was clearly enunciated during the time when we were debating the merger proposals in this House and on other occasions. I am not prepared to go into details and to repeat so many things already uttered by my colleagues, but I would like to point out clearly to the P.A.P. leadership our stand on merger. I would like now to quote from Hansard, Volume 15, No. 5 of 21st November last year, from a speech made by our Party Chairman to explain our stand. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown, in the middle of column 400 to column 401, clearly enunciated our merger stand. I do not want to read all the words there, but the Minister for Finance just now, when touching upon our Barisan stand on merger, has distorted it. He has also quoted out of context. He has explained things according to the P.A.P. dictionary and has entirely and completely distorted our stand. Mr Speaker, Sir, columns 400 and 401 of this particular Hansard have clearly stated our stand, and I will not repeat what the Member for Queenstown has said there. I would like only to point out that the P.A.P. Government think that by distorting our stand they may defeat us. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not changed our stand on merger. We will struggle to the end to secure and preserve the basic and democratic rights which the people of Singapore now enjoy. Mr Speaker, Sir, when introducing his motion the Prime Minister said that he unconditionally accepted the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill - "to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories". Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask, what are the terms for the Borneo territories? We are still in the dark. You will remember that yesterday when the Prime Minister was making a speech the Member for Anson asked him whether he could disclose the terms of merger for the Borneo territories before the referendum was held, but he evaded that question. He did not give an answer to that. From this, we can see very clearly that the so-called terms of merger for the Borneo territories are worse terms which the people of Singapore cannot accept. Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see why the Prime Minister in his speech showed so much confidence that the people would overwhelmingly support Command Paper 33 of 1961. Proposals (b) and (e) will be worse than proposal (a). The people do not know what are the contents of proposals (b) and (c), but they do know that the poison in proposals (b) and (c) is worse than that contained in proposal (a). Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill yesterday said that the White Paper proposals on merger were the best the P.A.P. Government could get, but strangely enough, he introduced an amendment as another proposal. Why should he introduce the third proposition when he knows full well that such a proposition will not be acceptable to the people of Singapore? Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember that on Friday last the House received the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill. On Saturday, the Prime Minister and the Member for Cairnhill went together to Kuala Lumpur on a pilgrimage to pay their homage there, and as a result of this joint trip, the Prime Minister accepted the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill as the third alternative for the people to vote on. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has said many times that the interests of the people and the State must come first before the interests of the political Parties. He has also prided himself on the fact that his Party is a responsible Party and that he is a responsible Member. He described the debate in this House as a battle between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. This specious argument of the Member for Cairnhill should be rebutted. He said yesterday that the P.A.P.'s merger proposals were the best that they could get and yet he introduced another proposal which is worse than the P.A.P.'s proposal, hoping that he could deceive and mislead the people of Singapore into voting for either alternative. Therefore, we can point out that the Member for Cairnhill is not concerned with the interest of the people of Singapore; he is responsible to the P.A.P. only and not to the people. He is interested in saving the P.A.P. Government from collapsing. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill knows that the P.A.P.'s White Paper merger proposals will not be acceptable to the people of Singapore. He says that if these proposals were to be put to the people, they would reject them. He termed the Command Paper 33 as a form of closer relationship between the two territories and not as merger. The Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has issued several statements to the Press confirming that the present constitutional arrangement is not merger but a closer partnership. I believe he was very honest when he said that. However, the Back and Front Benches of the Government have said that the Barisan Sosialis are opposed to merger. But as a matter of fact, this is not merger. We have not seen the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the P.A.P. deny the statement by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and the leaders of S.P.A. Therefore, we can clearly see that the P.A.P. has acquiesced in the fact that the White Paper merger proposals are only a form of closer relationship and not merger. But the P.A.P.'s Ministers and Members always accuse us of having delayed merger or of opposing merger. Their pretext and excuses can be explained only by their own P.A.P. dictionary. The common run of the people cannot accept their explanation. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister yesterday said that we, the Barisan Sosialis, have made a mistake about the so-called Penang and Malacca type of merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me quote the speech by the Prime Minister. He said that the Barisan Sosialis later expressed the hope that the citizens of Singapore could automatically become citizens of Malaya. On this point they had the support of the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim. The Prime Minister pointed out that if the constitutional documents could give support to their assertion that the citizens here can automatically become citizens of Malaya, then let it be decided by impartial Judges. If these constitutional documents do not include these terms as the basis of their arguments, then all these arguments will be rejected. What he meant was that if we the Barisan Sosialis demand automatic conversion of citizens, then we must find a constitutional precedent, otherwise our demand will have to be rejected. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister is an expert on law, but when we debated the National Referendum Bill and the question of merger in this House, their tactics were to cite precedents. When these precedents could not be found, they tried to distort the stand of the Opposition. If that was of no avail to them, then they would say the Opposition were Communists or Communist stooges. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us presume that what the Prime Minister said is correct; then at least we are able to find one precedent to show the P.A.P. that there is such a precedent. You know that the administrative rights of the eleven States in the Federation of Malaya are vested in the Central Government, that is to say, they have no autonomy. You cannot find any autonomy in any of the eleven States in the Federation of Malaya. But if, according to the logic of the Prime Minister, we can find this precedent in the White Paper merger proposals, Singapore will become a State of the Federation of Malaya. But according to the details of the White Paper merger proposals Singapore will have autonomy in labour and education, but this is not to be found in other States in the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore we can see very clearly that if the Federation Government can create this constitutional precedent, why cannot our 624,000 citizens in Singapore become citizens of the Federation of Malaya? And, in fact, according to Articles 17 and 22 of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, the citizens of Singapore have all the necessary qualifications to become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we can clearly see his argument in defence of himself cannot hold water. The Prime Minister yesterday mentioned the letter which our Secretary-General wrote to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Let me quote a small paragraph from this. The Prime Minister said, "Any political Party in the Assembly can directly contact the Government of the Federation of Malaya to negotiate for better terms on the question of merger. As a matter of fact, the Member for Cairnhill tried to do so, and he also knew the actual position. Similarly, the Member for Cairnhill also knew the views of the Prime Minister of the Federation on this matter. Even the Barisan Sosialis, which is controlled by the Communists through their open front organisations and their leader, Mr Lim Ching Siong, publicly in April wrote to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Tunku Abdul Rahman." I do not intend to talk about the contents of the letter between Mr Lim Ching Siong and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. I believe my Party Chairman will disclose the contents of this letter at an appropriate time. But what I want to stress here is that the Prime Minister accused my Secretary-General as the leader of the open front organisations of the Communists. But the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, when questioned by the reporters, said that he could not describe the letter as one addressed to him by a Communist. He personally believed that this letter could not be one sent by a Communist. Mr Speaker, Sir, this statement of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya was published on the 29th of March in the English Press and the Chinese Press in big headlines. I wish to point out here that the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya openly admitted that the letter sent by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis was not from the Communists. In other words, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has admitted that my Secretary-General is not a Communist. But the P.A.P., the Ministers and the Prime Minister have every now and then accused us of being the stooges of the Communists, and that our Secretary-General is the leader of the open front organisations of the Communist Party. From the statements of the two Prime Ministers, we can see clearly that the Prime Minister of Singapore is very dishonest. He is now trying to use all sorts of ways and means to smear the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, hoping that there might be some people who could be misled by their smears and their intimidation. His speeches are intended to prevent the masses from supporting us. I wish to tell the Front-Benches and the Back-Benches of the P.A.P. that their smear campaign will not be able to prevent the broad masses of the people front rallying to our side. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education talked at great length. I am delighted to hear from him. At least the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech yesterday also admitted that our stand on the merger question is correct. If, my memory is not incorrect, the Parliamentary Secretary said that what he meant was that the 624,000 citizens of Singapore can become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. He went on to say they would not trouble the Barisan Sosialis to put forth their merger proposals. From the speeches made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education it proves that our stand on the merger question is based on the interests of the 624,000 Singapore citizens. At the same time, the Minister for Finance also confirmed this in the last radio forum. The Minister for Finance described our merger proposal as a kind of super merger. Therefore, we can clearly see that our stand on merger is consistent. We have never changed and it is correct. But our stand has been deliberately distorted by the P.A.P. It has been turned into a so-called unconditional merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore now pay a lot of attention to the outcome of the constitutional future of Singapore. In the coming referendum, they will decide, their political power in the future. Therefore, the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is the only way to express their views. I believe that since the P.A.P. have already made a lot of propaganda about the P.A.P. type of merger for about a year, they have not got the trust of the people. What the people want to decide now is the merger proposal contained in Cmd. Paper 33. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I began my speech, I said that in playing games, we must follow the rules. Now, the P.A.P. and their fellow travellers, i.e., the S.P.A., have played a game not based on the rules. But I will tell them not to forget that when they play this type of game without rules, they must remember that they have 624,000 citizens as an audience watching them. If they really do not regard the consequences as important, and continue with this type of a game and disregard the anger of these 624,000 people, then they had better consider the interests of these people. 10.36 p.m. Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the oligarchy of the P.A.P. has made all sorts of tricks to popularise their merger plan. But this merger plan is not acceptable to the people. Therefore, they purposely distort the stand of the Barisan Sosialis and try to smear it. They have already clouded the issue by their proposals in order to confuse the people and reap some harvest out of the confusion. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the various steps in the P.A.P.'s plan on merger, we know they have distorted the honest opinions of the Opposition. They have brought out two proposals which are almost similar in nature to let the people choose. They have already told us that they want to bring up two questions, but we feel that both questions are the same and not beneficial to the people. Then, under such circumstances, how can the people choose? The intention of the P.A.P. has been contrary to what the Prime Minister has said previously at various Press conferences, that is, to let the people decide on the merger issue. What should be left to the people to decide? What does this mean? That is, the people should be allowed to say `yes' or `no'. Since the two questions in the motion are exactly the same, the P.A.P. leaders are afraid of putting the merger proposal as contained in Cmd. Paper 33 to be decided by the people. Real gold will stand the test of the touchstone. But the P.A.P. dare not put this to the people for approval or rejection. They have repeatedly distorted our Barisan Sosialis stand on merger and they have included clauses like that of blank votes to be deemed as in favour of the Government's view. From this, we can see that the Prime Minister's intention is to push through merger. This is a matter of "Heads I win: tails you lose." This is a trick. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to state here the basic stand of our Barisan Sosialis. These few days, the Member for Cairnhill and the P.A.P. Members have continued to distort our stand. I would like to clarify a certain point. The P.A.P's oligarchy has insisted on putting the Malacca and Penang type of merger out, and let labour and education policies be decided by the Central Government. They figure this is what the Barisan Sosialis want. This we have heard repeatedly. They have emphasised it many, many times, But they still bite on it. What is the intention? The intention is this. If they can hoodwink the people on this question, they can bring up two questions in the referendum, and they can achieve their purpose very easily in this way. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Penang and Malacca type of merger - whose proposal is it? In August 1961, the Barisan Sosialis already clearly announced publicly in the papers that we want to have a complete and true merger immediately on the basis of the Penang and Malacca type of merger and that the citizens of Singapore should be automatically converted into Federation citizens, and that there should be proportionate representation in the Central Parliament. Our stand has been very firm. 10.44 p.m.

It is also very simple and clear. The White Paper on merger in this House was brought out in November 1961. We have allowed a few months before the tabling of the motion. Why do the P.A.P. want to distort our stand and say that we advocate the Penang and Malacca type of merger? Why do they not talk about proportional representation and automatic conversion of citizenship? We want Singapore citizens to be automatically converted into Federal citizens. But the P.A.P. say that in this way we will sell out the rights of over half of the 624,000 Singapore citizens. We only quoted the Penang and Malacca type as an example, but this has been misconstrued by others. The P.A.P. leaders are very good at distorting other people's stand and also quoting them out of context. They have manufactured the Penang and Malacca type of merger and have attributed it to the Barisan Sosialis. Fortunately the Workers' Party in the Opposition has seen this clearly. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all these facts bear out our past argument that the P.A.P. have tried to confuse the people by bringing in two questions for merger. The two questions to be posed are similar in nature. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. oligarchy had observed the rules of democracy and were just, they would have proposed in the motion of the Prime Minister only one question, and that should be the question in the referendum for the people to decide. Unfortunately, our request was defeated by the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. out-voting us. Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, the definition of "merger" --- The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr G. Kandasamy): Point of order. I think we are short of a quorum. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

We have a quorum flow. Mr Tan Cheng Tong, please continue.

Hear, hear! 10.50 p.m. Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is the definition of the term "merger"? The meaning of merger is to unite two States together. Now, if merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya is to be a true merger, then it should be a reunification of the two territories, and the Governments of the two territories should resolve and the political Parties of the two territories should face the people and let them decide as to which political Party can meet the wishes of the people, so that a Central Government can be elected by the people of the two territories, and the two territories are thus united into one. That is what we understand by merger. Yesterday the Member for Cairnhill expounded his theories in this House. But we the representatives of the people of Singapore understand his attitude very well. That is his usual practice. All his actions are taken with the motive of doing something at the expense of the people, and the people will pass correct judgment on him. Under British colonial directions, the merger plan regarding the two territories has become a controversial topic in the political arena. There are two types of people. One insists on abiding by the will of the people. This is in accordance with the wishes of the people. In other words, this type of people would seek a type of merger that is supported by and wanted by the people. The other type of people is like the Member for Cairnhill and the P.A.P. Members. All their activities are based on personal interest. They are used to fooling the people and to intimidating and coercing them into accepting their schemes in order to realise their purposes and so to help the colonialist plot succeed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is of this type. The speech he made in this House yesterday mainly revolves round the point that it is correct and proper for the Prime Minister to move a motion providing two propositions for the people to decide. From this we can see that they are harping on the same tune. I would like to point out that when the White Paper on merger of the Government was introduced and debated in this House, it got the support of the Member for Cairnhill. As a result of that support, it was passed. We tried our best to boycott their scheme and to let the people see through their scheming and to understand our stand. Now, since the Member for Cairnhill has supported the White Paper on merger, why has he not persuaded the P.A.P. Government to pose only one question, i.e. on the White Paper on merger alone? Why should he allow the Government to pose two or more questions? Perhaps it is because he and the P.A.P. Members are people of the same nature. It is no wonder. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance once again stressed his argument that the citizens of Singapore would not become second-class citizens and that their type of merger has met with the wishes of the people. I think he was only trying to give some reason to justify the posing of two propositions as mentioned in the motion. I am sure all the people know that all this is humbug, because in the past they have been used to the terms "citizens" and "nationals" over Radio Singapore and at forums. Since according to them citizenship is similar to nationality, why should they not straightaway put their merger proposals to the people for a decision? Their type of merger does not meet with the wishes of the people. According to their merger proposals, a lot of people will lose their citizenship rights and one-quarter of our revenue will be given to the Central Government. That will amount to $90 million. Our internal affairs will have to be controlled by the Central Government. I think the sum required to be spent on the administration of internal affairs would amount to tens of millions of dollars. Why should we contribute more than what is actually required? From all this we can see that the arguments of the Minister for Finance are not sound. By that type of merger we will be giving away our rights and many other things. On the other hand, we do not get equal benefits. How could this type of merger be acceptable? Now I want to stress this because the Minister for Finance has said so many things. I urge the Prime Minister to withdraw his motion and put his White Paper merger proposals to the people as the sole question for them to decide so that we may know whether his White Paper merger proposals are good or bad. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 28; Absent, 8. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Chan Sun Wing. Mohammed Akib. Fung Yin Ching, Buang bin Miss. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Keng Swee. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandaswamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Absent Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Abdul Hamid bin Mohd. Ariff bin Haji Jumat. Suradi. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim M. Ismail Rahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Pang Boon. Madam. Rajah, A. P. Koh, C. H. Ramaswamy, S. Lin You Eng. Seow Peck Leng, Marhsall, David. Mrs. Rajaratnam, S. Tan Kia Gan. Sahorah binte Thio Chan Bee. Ahmat, Madam. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Amendment accordingly negatived.

Now the debate is on the original motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, and the debate can range over items 3* and 4* on the Order Paper. I think the Member for Cairnhill has tabled an amendment to the original motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Now is the proper time for the Member for Cairnhill to move his amendment. *See footnote at col. 185-6.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, "at end, to add `or (c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for Borneo territories'.". 11.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will remember that when we were debating the National Referendum Bill in Committee we pointed out to the Government that it was essential that the questions to be posed in the merger referendum should be questions that have been fully debated in the Assembly and that they should embrace all possible and practicable forms of closer association with the Federation of Malaya. The Prime Minister in his motion has suggested two questions. One is that of Command Paper 33 and the other is complete and unconditional merger on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya. This the Prime Minister says, covers the stand of some of the Opposition Parties, particularly the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. Sir, the S.P.A. is indeed very anxious that the referendum on merger should contain all possible forms of closer association and I therefore during the Committee stage of the National Referendum Bill brought to the notice of the House that I intended to move an amendment posing a third question. I want it to be understood in this House lest the distortionists start distorting again that the proposal that I am moving now is not a S.P.A. question. It should not be taken to be a S.P.A. question put into a merger referendum. It should be taken as a contribution from the S.P.A. to assist the Assembly to pose all possible forms of closer association for the decision of the electorate. The S.P.A. - Alliance still stand by Command Paper 33. Sir, let us now examine the three questions that are before the House. The first question is that of Command Paper 33. A full and lengthy debate took place on the agreement reached between the Singapore Government and the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Full details of that agreement have been published and are well known to the electorate. The P.A.P. brought confusion to the minds of the electorate by describing this form of agreement as merger. We have said that this is nothing but a form of closer association and if the word "merger" is to be used, perhaps we can describe the agreement reached between the two Governments as a form of half merger. It is a first step ---

Order. I trust the hon. Member is not reopening the debate on the Prime Minister's motion. He can just touch on it in passing. I hope he is not reopening the debate. He is moving an amendment. But I did make it very clear the debate should range over not only the Prime Minister's motion, but also the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown and also the amendment which is now being proposed by the Member for Cairnhill, and the other two notions.

With respect, Sir, I do not propose to reopen the debate on command Paper 33. What I am trying to point out to the House are the various forms of closer association and want to take my argument step by step. Command Paper 33 is half merger. Call it a 50 per cent merger. Therefore, what is the next possible and practicable question? That is proposal (b), complete and unconditional merger on an equal basis with the 11 states at present in the Federation. That is something which the public know. That is something which we all know. We cannot as an alternative ask for a 75 per cent merger or 125 per cent merger, because it will be meaningless. The electorate will not know what a 75 per cent merger is, or what a 125 per cent merger is. They know what the White Paper is, and they know what complete and unconditional merger is. It is indeed unfortunate that in this tussle between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. a lot of extraneous matters were brought into the debate to confuse the minds of the electorate. The P.A.P. claims that proposition (b) does not mean automatic citizenship rights; the Barisan Sosialis claim that what they mean by complete and unconditional merger includes automatic citizenship right. All this argument is unnecessary. The citizenship rights are spelt out in the constitution and there is no need for the clever wigs of the P.A.P. to try to give their interpretation of what the constitution means. In the same way, the Barisan should not try to do the same thing. The Workers' Party representative, the Member for Anson, tries to explain his own interpretation, and his interpretation is such that not one citizen of Singapore can become a citizen of the Federation of Malaya, and things are getting more and more ridiculous. It gets more and more ridiculous through the unnecessary party warfare that has been waged over the question of merger for a long, long time, so much so that at times Members of the Assembly do get confused too. If it is the desire of some Opposition Parties - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the U.P.P. - to clamour for complete and unconditional merger, then it is up to them to hold referendum meetings to tell the electorate what they mean by what they want. If they can convince the electorate that complete and conditional merger, even with automatic citizenship rights, will mean that the citizens of Singapore, when they become citizens of the Federation, must accept all that is implied in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya where provision has been made for a number of things, it would, in my view, be difficult for the citizens of Singapore to accept that at the present juncture. They can have all the privileges that they want, but they must not overlook the fact that they too must accept all the limitations that are imposed under the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. So if they were to conduct referendum meetings and present their particular case in a straightforward manner without trying to mislead the public into believing that complete and unconditional merger is going just to mean automatic citizenship rights for the citizens of Singapore, then the public would have been misled into voting for something which is not true. Sir, I have heard it talked about in coffee shops and elsewhere by the opponents of Cmd. Paper 33 that it was not right that the Singapore Government should accept a position of not having the same status as the Bornean territories. The opponents of Cmd. Paper 33, of course, tried their best to confuse the electorate. They said that Cmd. Paper 33 would place Singapore in an inferior position when compared with the position of any one of the Bornean territories, and because Malaysia is in the process of formation and because the Bornean territories are coming into this association with the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, therefore, I say it is but right that the electorate of Singapore should be given the opportunity to pass judgment on whether or not they prefer Singapore to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms offered to the Borneo territories. I do not know which political Party represented in this Assembly would be wanting to take up that line of closer relationship, but it is, of course, free to those that have preached this line of argument to hold referendum meetings and try to get the people to their line of thought and vote for proposal (c), brought in by me as an amendment to the motion. To me, Sir, these are the only possible and practicable forms of closer association. The Barisan Sosialis have said that they have a further proposal to put forward, a fourth proposal, which should be put as one of the questions in the referendum merger. We have not heard what that proposal is, but we are prepared to listen to what they have to say. But if I, as an old Member of this Assembly, can give a little bit of advice to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, if they want their case to be properly, thoroughly and carefully considered, it would be in their interest to present their case in a straightforward, understandable manner without bringing in any extraneous matters like the P.A.P. is trying to cheat the electorate, the Barisan Sosialis is trying to look after the interests of the electorate, and that it is a Barisan Sosialis question. Questions to be posed in a merger referendum should have no party political content. It is vital that in the consideration of the questions to be posed in a referendum, the interests of the country should come first, and that the questions to be posed should be questions that are easily understood by the electorate and that the proposal should be one that has some known form. It would be wrong if the Barisan Sosialis were to put up a proposal that bears no relation to facts. It would be wrong if the Barisan Sosialis want to put a proposal in order to appeal to the emotions of the public instead of putting up a proposal that would best serve the interests of the public. And what is more important is that whatever proposal we put forward to the electorate for their decision, it must be one that can be acceptable to the Federation of Malaya.

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 proposed --- "At end, to add --- `or (c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." 11.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is good to see the Member for Cairnhill being so considerate and solicitous of the welfare of the people of Singapore. He says he would like to see all forms of merger offered in a referendum. But let us ask: what are the forms of merger that will be offered in the referendum? He is also very modest - he does not want to claim that it is a S.P.A. question. It is merely a contribution towards the giving of more forms of merger for the choice of the people of Singapore. Yet in his explanation, we have heard no explanation. What is this term "no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories"? I remember, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill always talks of the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., and somehow or other he always appears to come out best. All those things that are false belong to the P.A.P. and to the ex-P.A.P. All the good things belong to the S.P.A. But see what a somersaulter the Member for Cairnhill is! We saw that somersault when he was talking about clauses 28 and 29 in the Referendum Bill. And now we again see another somersault. Why do I say this? If you remember, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill very categorically said, "If you want to offer questions to the people, then first of all you must have an unqualified and a qualified answer." If, for example, in the case of merger, the first question to be posed to the people should be "Do you want merger?", and if the answer came back with a "no", he said that it would be an unqualified "no". But if it should come back with a "yes", then it would be a qualified "yes". Therefore, his contention was that if you want to test the views of the people on this merger issue, you should first pose the simple question asking whether or not the people wanted merger. And if the answer came back with a "yes", then you can pose the various types and forms of merger to the people. All these records can be found in the proceedings in Select Committee on the Referendum Bill. And not only in Select Committee. His Secretary-General, Mr Lee Kim Chuan, also publicly stated the same stand in the University Forum a couple of weeks back; and again in the Anson mass rally, also a couple of weeks back. So we see now the somersault again of wanting three forms of merger without giving the people a chance to say "no", Of course, at one time he was very much against the dictatorship of the P.A.P., but it appears that the Member for Cairnhill is now hoping to get a Ministership of the depleted P.A.P. Government.

Yes, you had better watch out when he becomes the Minister for Home Affairs.

Order. Did I hear the Leader of the House making a speech sitting down? I ask him not to make a speech if he wishes to interject.

We are always ready, Sir, for any Minister for Home Affairs. I know there are police around this House, Sir, and all those bodyguards too. But we are ready for anyone. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Including Woodbridge.

Order.

Sir, in spite of the fact that the Cobbold Commission Report has not yet been published, it is quite obvious to us on this side of the House that the Member for Farrer Park, as well as the Member for Cairnhill, and as well as the P.A.P. Ministers, already known what the Cobbold Commission Report is all about. Otherwise it is very difficult for us to imagine how the Member for Cairnhill can ever propose such an alternative question. It is even more difficult for us to understand how it has been so easily accepted by the P.A.P. Government. Probably this is another new alternative which already) has the blessing of the Tunku. If you will remember, Sir, only a few days back it was publicly stated in the papers that the Member for Cairnhill, together with the Prime Minister, had conferred with the Prime Minister of the Federation.

Point of explanation, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

It would seem that the hon. Member has lost the historical dates of all these happenings. I said that during the Committee stage I would move a motion in this form. I went to Kuala Lumpur last Saturday on private business. And because I always stay with the Tunku, I saw the Prime Minister there. If he wants to think that there is collaboration, I hope to God that there will soon be a collaboration to knock out the Communists.

It was indeed a happy coincidence that the Member for Cairnhill should also happen to be in K.L. together with our Prime Minister. Of course, one plays golf; the other carries the sarong or hides behind the sarong: I do not know which. The Prime Minister always says, "Pay my compliments to the Member for Cairnhill." But what, Sir, are the terms for the Borneo territories? As far as we know, there was this Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee that was supposed to have been a consultative body but which was very smoothly turned into much more than a Consultative Committee. In fact, the P.A.P. tried their level best to make it into an executive or a legislative body. They wanted to make it a body that was to lay down the blueprint for their pet design of Malaysia in order that everything might fit in with the plans of the British. Therefore, what are these terms that are offered for the Borneo territories? Are they the terms that the people of Borneo themselves want? That is what we like to know. Or are they merely terms which have been imposed on them? We know, Sir, that in Singapore certain terms as embodied in the White Paper Cmd. 33 are terms which the P.A.P. Government would like to impose on the people. In the case of the Borneo territories, as far as we know, there is not even a single White Paper. Only recently, Sir, a couple of days back, we read in the papers about people in British North Borneo clamouring to know what is happening and what actually is in the Cobbold Commission Report.

You mean you want to enter Malaysia?

So far as we know, Sir ---

That is the trouble with you. Your knowledge is always limited.

Order.

You see, Sir, when the Prime Minister went to Kuching and British North Borneo, all he did was to hide behind the radio and to play golf. He only saw one or two big shots. He never met the people and he never knew what was happening. I went to Kuching, Sir, and I met not the topnotchers, and I did not go and play golf. An hon. Member: You played billiards!

And the Prime Minister dare not even go to Brunei because I hear they do not like him very much there. [Interruption] But, Sir, we know ---

He has gone back to London.

--- what the people in Sarawak, in Brunei, and in British North Borneo want.

How do you know?

From his tutor in China, probably in repatriation.

They have expressed through their political Parties their desire for self-determination, self-government and independence. For example, the Sarawak United People's Party, which has a party membership of 45,000 --- An hon. Member: So much?

Stupendous, incredible!

--- involving one in seven adults ---

That is the trouble. You always involve other people

--- in the whole of Sarawak and composing mostly of Ibans, Dayaks, and Melanaus. Sir, they have come out openly against Malaysia. And they have expressed their desire that they must have self-determination and self-government before they ever have any form of closer relationship with Malaya. Just to oblige our Prime Minister here, who was a very good friend of the Chairman of the Sarawak United People's Party, it was he who told me - even he thought the same thing - that at least 80 per cent of the people in Sarawak are against Malaysia. I ask him to write a letter to ask Mr Ong Kee Hui if he likes.

Order. Is not the Member for Queenstown perhaps anticipating the Report of the Cobbold Commission?

I am not anticipating, it is general knowledge in Sarawak that the great majority of the people are against Malaysia.

You send a Lee Siew Choh Commission!

And if they want to talk about Brunei - 99 per cent in Brunei are against Malaysia. Mr Chan Chee Seng: Why not 100 per cent?

They had a Commision of Inquiry about five or six months ago in Brunei, and if they were to publish that report it would embarrass our Prime Mnister here very much indeed. [Interruption] I can tell you many stories about Brunei. Sir, just to convince our Prime Minister ---

Order. We do not want to hear stories about Brunei. Shall we now come back to the amendment to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories?

My point is this, Sir. We do not know what these terms are. If they are the terms which express the wishes and aspiratons of, the people of Sarawak, Brunei and British North Borneo, then we can understand why this alternative has been put up as a question and we can understand that it is an honest alternative. But as it is, the Member for Cairnhill seems to have known all about the Cobbold Commission Report. Our Prime Minister seems to have known all about the Cobbold Commission Report. Otherwise he would not have accepted it so easily. It is Q.E.D. Simple A, B, C. An hon. Member: In cahoots!

What about D?

Order. [Laughter] I hope the Member for Queenstown is not going to laugh until midnight. He has got twelve minutes.

They have been seling the line that everybody who is aganst Malaysia and everybody who is against merger is a Communist and only the Chinese are against Malaysia. Yet in Sarawak and in Brunei the majority of the people are non-Chinese and they are all against Malaysia and merger. What has the Prime Minister got to say? It only proves that what the P.A.P. have been saying to the people are all falsehoods. Sir, we felt the intensity of the anti-Malaysia feeling in Sarawak recently. I had occasion to go along to Sarawak recently, Sir ---

Order. Has all this got anything to do with with the amendment? We are talking about the terms - "to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories". I do not think the feeling of the people in Sarawak would alter the terms.

That is the whole trouble, Sir. We do not know what the terms are. But I know what the people in Sarawak want. This has been expressed not only through political Parties but also through civic organsations. There were also other forms of protest. But, of course, such news has to be suppressed by Radio P.A.P., and a lot & people in Singapore do not know about the intense feelings against Malaysia. That is why when you talk of terms not less favourable for the Borneo territories, it is very puzzling, Sir.

You are always puzzled. That is the trouble!

It is impossible to believe that this alternative which the Member for Cairnhill wants to pose as a third question in the referendum is really an honest one. But as regards the alternative and how it compares with the others, I think I will only deal with it when I come to speak on our own amendment. But we believe that if there's any alternative on the terms of the Borneo territories, then it must be the terms which express the wishes and aspirations of the people in Borneo. If they are merely terms imposed on them by the colonial Government, then they are not terms which can be very favourable to those territories. The only way to find out whether such terms express the wishes of the people on not is to first have a general election in those Borneo territories. Only then do we consider that it is a fair alternative and an honest one. As it is, Sir, it is like buying a pig in a poke, and it is definitely unfair to the people of Singapore. Surely we do not expect the people to choose something they hardly know anything about. Does the Member for Cairnhill suggest that we give a blank cheque to the P.A.P. after all their distrtions and dishonesty? That is asking a bit too much, Sir. For this reason we oppose this amendment to put this third question to the people. Of course, we must try and understand the motivation behind this so-called third alternative which the Government so willingly accept as a third alternative to be posed to the people in the referendum. They hope to gain a great deal from the confusion that will be caused in the minds of the people by having more alternatives. I do now know how their mathematical calculation works, but by the division of votes which oppose the White Paper, they hope they would thereby be able to confuse a good section of the people of Singapore to supporting their White Paper merger proposals. It becomes more difficult to understand this third question suggested by the Member for Cairnhill especially when we remember that S.P.A. have publicly stated that they support this White Paper merger proposals. How do you reconcile their contradiction? It does not work out. The S.P.A. support the White Paper merger proposals. The White Paper merger proposals are going to be posed as one question. Yet the S.P.A. are now suggesting a new question. Do these two questions amount to the same question? Or are they different? If they are different, then the S.P.A. must come out openly and say that they oppose the White Paper merger proposals. How do they reconcile all this contradiction? There seems to be some confused thinking.

No, no!

I hope that the Member for Farrer Park, who says "No, no, no", will be able to enlighten us. But all in all, we do not believe this alternative which they want to suggest to the people is an honest one. It is meant to help the P.A.P. and to further confuse the people as regards how they should oppose the P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals. I hope that if the S.P.A. were really sincere in their offering an alternative to the people, then let them go back to their original stand, namely, let them suggest , and let the P.A.P. accept, their orginal stand of first posing a question that asks for a "yes" or "no". If it is a "no" it becomes

Order. The hon. Member is repeating himself. Let him come to a different tack. Only two minutes more.

I intend to finish, Sir, I just want to remind the S.P.A. that if they were sincere, then they should go back to their stand and not keep on somersaulting. Their stand, as orignally stated and as appeared in black and white in the Select Committee proceedines, is, let there be first a question on merger itself, "yes" or "no"; and following a "yes", let the different forms of merger be posed. As it is, we feel that the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. are just in cahoots hoping to deceive the people in order that they may push through their White Paper merger proposals. Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 14: Absent, 9. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad Jabri bin Bani, S. T. Mohammad Akib Chan Sun Wing. Buang bin Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Lingam, S. V. Chor Yeok Eng. Low Por Tuck. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Kandasamy, G. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Kuan Yew. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Teck Him. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Yew Hock. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Aiwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Ayes-contd. Absent. M.Ismail Rahim. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Rajah, A. P. Fung Yin Ching, Ramaswamy, S. Miss. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Koh, C. H. Thio Chan Bee. Marshall, David. Toh Chin Chye. Rajaratnam, S. Wee Toon Boon. Sahorah binte Yaacob bin Mohamed. Ahmat, Madam. Yong Nyuk Lin. Tan Cheng Tong. Amendnent accordingly agreed to.

Time for adjournment

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