Hansard, 1962-07-11

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]

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move a motion regarding breach of privilege, That the Memorandum addressed to all Honourable Members of the Assembly dated 25th June, 1962, by the Chairman of the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee (Committee of Liaison Officers of Trade Unions) contains threats to the Government back benchers in the following paragraphs:- "45. Everyone of you in the Assembly are responsible for whatever that might follow if a few dictators in power are allowed to have their way in snatching away from the people the rights that they have gained at the cost of bitter struggles and great sacrifices. "46. To those who are Government Backbenchers we wish to point out that it would be folly to think that they would not be held responsible by the people for the misdeeds of the Government leaders. "47. It is in fact in your hands to check the Government from its fascist moves. Indeed it is with the support of the Backbenchers that they have committed all their treacherous acts and can continue to do so only if they continue to support them. "48. Whatever happens the day is not far when the Government Backbenchers have to return to the people and live among them as ordinary men and women and for the rest of their life they will not be able to escape the people's reproach and wrath if they fail them now while those who are making use of these Backbenchers may have taken comfortable refuge elsewhere. "49. This is the time when you can all clearly show that you are with the people in the defence of their democratic rights!", and that the said paragraphs constitute a breach of the Privileges of this Assembly.

The motion stands referred to the Comittee of Privileges under the provisions of paragraph (7) (d) (i) of Standing Order No. 93.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Origial Question [9th July, 1962] as amended [10th July, l962], "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; or (c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories." Which 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 tha 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.".-[The Prime Minister]. Original Question, as amended, again proposed. 2.38 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, last week during the debate on the Singapore National. Referendum Bill enough evidence has been produced to show that the Barisan Sosialis do not want a referendum on merger. I will provide further evidence to show that the reason why they do not want a referendum is that they do not want merger between Singapore and the Federation, although they pay lip service to a merger policy. On 2nd June, 1961, leaders of the Barisan Sosialis issued a statement announcing that they advocated internal self-government for Singapore without the Internal Security Council and agreed to Defence and Foreign Affairs remaining in the hands of the British. This stand by the six Barisan leaders was ridiculed not only by us but also by the Member for Anson. Such a stand on the abolition of the Internal Security Council will bring practically no change to Singapore's constitutional development. In fact, it meant that the Barisan Sosialis was advocating the continuation of ---

On a point of guidance, Sir. Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

May we know what the Deputy Prime Minister is now speaking on - whether it is on the original Question or the amendment itself?

The Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to speak on the motion, as amended, the motion which I have proposed to the House.

I was saying, Mr Speaker, that this proposal by the six leaders of the Barisan Sosialis really meant a continuation of the semi-colonial status of Singapore. When this idea of the Barisan leaders was laughed at and ridiculed by the people, the Barisan Sosialis quickly changed their stand and thought out a new plan. And on 28th August, 1961, they issued a manifesto which was referred to by the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Queenstown, in a debate on the 18th April, 1962. I quote from the revised transcript of 18th April, 1962 [Vol. 17, No. 9, col. 888]: 'Dr Lee Siew Choh: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I will now, therefore, read to the House our document as issued by the Barisan Sosialis on the 28th August, 1961. That document is the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on our constitutional future. I will skip the irrelevant parts and go on to the part which follows the issue of Penang and Malacca. It reads as follows: "The way ahead for real reunification of our country and our people is in one of two directions: (a) an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent state like Penang or Malacca -" those are the operative words -" Let me repeat, "those are the operative words". Now, the stupidity of the Barisan Sosialis in advocating merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca was, in fact, pointed out as early as 23rd November, 1961, when during a debate on merger it was the Member for Anson who said - let me quote Hansard. Vol 15, No. 7, col. 574: `We will come to Penang and Malacca where the Barisan Sosialis, having no legal consultant, really slipped...'. Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that the Barisan Sosialis slipped not because they had no legal consultant. In fact, when the 13 Barisan Assemblymen defected from the P.A.P., they also made great play that they had their own legal advisers; one of them was Mr T. T. Rajah.

And a few more.

The error of the Barisan Sosialis lies in the superficial manner in which they consider weighty problems of the State. It is fantastic indeed for a political Party like the Barisan to change its stand as easily as its leaders change their trousers!

How do you know they change their trousers?

They might not have changed their trousers perhaps, but the Member for Cairnhill could perhaps investigate by the smell. Now, when we pointed out to the Barisan Sosialis that it was not possible for Singapore to merge with the Federation on the basis of Penang and Malacca, they refused to acknowledge the mistake. And finally it was left to the Member for Hong Lim to point out publicly this error in the thinking of the Barisan Sosialis. At the radio forum on 14th June, 1962, this was what the Member for Hong Lim said - let me quote: `Just now the Prime Minister has mentioned about the Barisan's stand of Penang and Malacca type of merger. My attitude towards this is that perhaps they have once made a mistake.' Yes, Mr Speaker, the Barisan has soiled its political trousers. We told them there was a stain on their trousers but they would not believe it. This was probably because we were sitting facing them. The Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim, being seated behind the Barisan Sosialis, could see the stain on the Barisan trousers more clearly. And they finally convinced the Barisan of their mistake. So it was that the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson succeeded in persuading the Barisan Sosialis to move a resolution for complete merger, even if it would mean the control of education and labour policies by the Central Government. In fact, the Member for Anson, during the debate last year on merger, was so excited at the prospect of having found an alliance in the Barisan Sosialis and so delighted that he had found a new formula that he had this to say (Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 7, col. 583): `Sir, I do not want to exaggerate. I cannot exaggerate. But I shall put it very simply. In fact, Sir, I will be quite frank that if education and labour were given to the Federation, the White Paper would be more acceptable to me, and I do not care if it means the end of my political career.' Members of this House will remember the Member for Anson's public announcement that he was finished with politics after he had resigned as Chief Minister and failed to appear in a by-election in Cairnhill. We all know too well by now how much weight we can attach to the words of the Member for Anson. The history of his political antics shows that he is one of the denizens of never, never land. Those who live in never, never land never, never mean what they say. The Member for Anson was so delighted that he had found an alliance in the Barisan Sosialis - continued in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 7, col. 566: `Sir, I must say that I learned with some surprise and delight from the Member for Queenstown that his Party - to me, as far as I can understand, a Party that represents the industrial Chinese worker, I do not know about the others - were prepared to accept Federation control of education policy, and I say hear, hear!' Now if the Barisan Sosialis, or for that matter the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson, are sincere about their declarations, then rightly they should go out and propagate to the people that they wish for complete merger with the Federation even if it means control of education and labour policies by the Central Government. But have they really done that? Mr Speaker, they have instead been spending their time in denouncing the referendum and the White Paper proposals. What is astounding is that the Barisan Sosialis should, within the space of one year, have changed its stand on merger three times. Three times! First, they wanted internal self-government without the Internal Security Council - the British to retain foreign affairs and defence. After this idea had been ridiculed by the people, they advocated merger like Penang and Malacca. When this new line was pointed out to them as a mistake by the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim, they proposed in this House complete merger, even if it meant the control of education and labour policies by the Central Government. Mr Speaker, can the people of Singapore allow a political Party like the Barisan Sosialis to be in charge of the destiny of their future when such a political Party has no firm stand, no fixed policies and has no idea what constitutional changes mean to the livelihood of the people: a Party like the Barisan Sosialis which takes directives, from outside, which takes directives or advice even from their opponents, the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson? Even the erstwhile revolutionaries in the Barisan Sosialis have lost confidence in their own Party and in their leadership. We know, Mr Speaker, that the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong, dispatched a mystery letter to the Prime Minister of the Federation, and by hand too. What the contents of this letter are, we do not know. I do not believe that any of the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen knows what is in this letter either. An hon. Member: Shame!

Could it be another change in the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on merger? Or is this a secret sell-out? All these antics of the Barisan Sosialis clearly show their immaturity in the handling of public affairs. We dread to think of the consequences if the affairs of this country are allowed to: be managed by the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan Sosialis can feed the people with slogans. But the people will remain hungry. What the people want is an assurance that they will have food to eat and water to drink. Not Barisan falsehoods and slogans rammed down their throats. Sir, two days ago, the Member for Anson made great play about the spirit of the Reid Constitutional Report. In fact, he had moved an amendment, which reads: 'merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states with automatic Federation citizenship for all Singapore citizens in accordance with the spirit of the Reid Report and the constitutional documents of the Federation, 1948 and 1957.'

Order. I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister is right when he says that the amendment was moved. Notice was given but it was not moved.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the correction. The amendment was not moved, but notice of the amendment was given along these lines. The Member for Anson goes back to 1948 and 1957. But he forgets that we are living in 1962. The spirit of the Reid Report is already embodied in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. This Constitution was gazetted on 11th December, 1957. In so far as those clauses relating to the admission of new territories and the question of citizenship by incorporation of territories are concerned, this Constitution still holds good. Article 2 of the Constitution says: `Parliament by law may admit other States to the Federation.' And Article 22 states: `If any new territory is admitted to the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, Parliament may by law determine what, persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates from, which such persons are to be citizens.' It means, in fact, that there is no question of automatic citizenship as demanded by the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim. Indeed, the Member for Anson argued that there was no provision for the transfer of automatic citizenship in the Federation Constitution. How those citizens who have connection with the territory that has joined the Federation after 1957 can become citizens of the Federation can only be decided by an Act of the Federation Parliament. This means that finally it is the Federation Government which must be responsible for passing this Act. Therefore, citizenship proposals must be negotiated with the Federation Government. To claim for automatic citizenship is quite contrary to the provisions of the Federation Constitution. To ask the people to vote for something for which no provision is made constitutionally is indeed to deceive the people. After he had spent considerable time reading the Report of the Reid Commission and arguing in its favour, we were indeed astounded that the Member for Anson announced, that he did not wish to move his amendment. The frivolity with which the Member for Anson introduces motions and withdraws them shows his utter disregard for other Members of this House. We therefore cannot regard him as a man to be considered seriously. If the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P. and the Workers' Party are honest in their intention for a closer relationship with the Federation, then they ought to adopt a more realistic attitude and seek to explain to the people what can really be achieved now instead of dangling objectives which they know very well cannot be obtained in the immediate future. Yesterday the Barisan Sosialis opposed the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill to add a third alternative in the proposals for the referendum. This proposal by the Member for Cairnhill suggested that Singapore should enter Malaysia on no less favourable terms than the Borneo territories. Let me remind the House that during the debate on merger, one of the points which the Barisan Sosialis harped upon was that whereas the Federation was prepared to accept the Borneo territories as constituent States of the Federation. Singapore was being treated on a less favourable level. In fact, in their argument they suggested, that Singapore should be treated at par with the Borneo territories. It was surprising indeed that the Member for Queenstown, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, should have opposed the entry of Singapore into Malaysia on no less favourable terms than the Borneo territories. This stand of the Barisan Sosialis can be explained in the light of our knowledge of their opposition towards the formation of Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis do not want Malaysia. Neither do they want Singapore to enter Malaysia. Why, Sir? The reason is that the Barisan Sosialis are following the line of the P.K.I., the Communist Party of Indonesia, which opposes the Malaysia Plan. During the debate on West Irian, the Member for Thomson let the cat out of the bag why the Barisan was against Malaysia. Mr Speaker. I could not get hold of a copy of Hansard for this debate, and I have to resort to newspaper reports of this debate. This was what the Straits Times of 20th January, 1962 (page 4) had to say: `He [Mr Bani] said Malaysia was an anti-Indonesia plan. Mr David Marshall asked if Mr Bani would explain what he meant when he said that Malaysia was an anti-Indonesia plan. Mr Bani continued: "We have been accused of being anti-Malaysia. Our attitude is quite simple. We support the concept of Malaysia." He said that an original plan for Malaysia had included Indonesia, but the plan of Tunku Abdul Rahman excluded Indonesia.'. The Member for Thomson cannot deny saying that Malaysia was anti-Indonesia because it did not include Indonesia. In fact, during the debate on Malaysia, the Member for Anson vigorously protested against this stand of the Barisan Sosialis. I quote from the Straits Times of the 25th of January, 1962, page 12: `Referring to a statement made by Mr S. T. Barn (Barisan-Thomson) during the debate on West Irian that Malaysia was anti-Indonesia, Mr David Marshall said he could not accept this. "To say that the Malaysia Plan was anti-Indonesia could suggest only one thing, that the Barisan Sosialis considered the North Borneo territories should be part of Indonesia and not part of Malaysia."' Sir, ever since the Assembly and the people of Singapore became involved in the question of merger and Malaysia, the conspiracies of the Barisan Sosialis to prevent and hinder merger to stop Malaysia have been exposed. They are an utterly insincere and dishonest group of people who do not have the national interest at heart, but only seek ---

Bluff!

--- to promote the interest of the Communist movement in South-East Asia --- An hon. Member: Do not bluff yourself!

It hurts them, Mr Speaker. As stooges of the P.K.I., they are prepared to stoop to the strategy of fighting the referendum, fighting merger and Malaysia and all this against the national interest of Singapore, the Federation and the Borneo territories. In this very debate itself, the Barisan Sosialis in their last desperate moments once more reveal with ease the fluidity with which they change their stand. They move one amendment to the motion we are debating. But even before a vote had been taken on this amendment, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, indicated that his Party would introduce another amendment. Sir, the antics of the Barisan Sosialis are of no avail, because the people have no confidence in their Party which seeks to remove the British ---

Why do you not try ---

Order.

Let me repeat it so that they can hear it better. The antics of the Barisan Sosialis are of no avail because the people have no confidence in their Party which seeks to remove British colonialism in order to substitute another type of foreign imperialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move an amendment ---

Order. May I just remind the hon. Member that he may speak on the motion as well, because he is now speaking on the main motion. He will not have another opportunity of speaking on the main motion. At the same time, he can move the amendment.

I seek your guidance, Sir. Can I speak again on this?

I am afraid not. The procedure is that the Member for Queenstown when he moved his amendment was speaking on the main motion. Therefore, he is now prohibited from speaking again on the main motion. The Member for Thomson has not done so as yet. The Member for Cairnhill has spoken on the main motion when he moved his amendment. The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken on the main motion. And now the Member for Thomson is speaking on the main motion. Any Member who has not as yet spoken on the main motion may do so. But there is nothing to prevent those Members from speaking on any amendments that may be moved now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, as an amendment, "at end, to add `or (d) genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day'.". Sir, this amendment will put forth in the referendum a proposition which, in fact, will be the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the merger issue ---

Another stand, is it?

Sir, I do not wish to comment on what the Deputy Prime Minister has said at this juncture ---

You had better not.

--- and he will get his answers in good time. The only direct comment that I want to make is that I am sure he does not believe half of what he has said just now. Sir, this concept of merger has been supported by the Workers' Party and the United People's Party in this Assembly in November last year. I refer you. Mr Speaker, to col. 406 of the debate of 21st November, 1961. You will note, Sir, that the proposition I now make to be put to the people is, in fact, word for word, the same as the amendment moved on 21st November, 1961, to the P.A.P. Government motion on the reunification of the two territories. You will recall, Sir, that this amendment was opposed by the P.A.P. and was subsequently defeated in this Assembly. Sir, the sentiments on this amendment have been thoroughly discussed in the debate held last year. Our points of view have been explained clearly and they are in black and white in the records of the Assembly. I do not propose to repeat them. Sir, it has been said that the Barisan Sosialis made a mistake in asking for complete merger.

He thinks of getting complete merger.

Government Members, to substantiate their allegation, have attempted to quote the Member for Hong Lim as though he is an authority on Barisan affairs, as saying that we had made a mistake ---

Certainly, the Barisan ---

Order. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister not to interject so often?

To some extent, Sir, they have also tried to quote the Member for Anson. But, as you are aware, Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Anson has refuted this. Today the P.A.P. use half truths and untruths to keep this afloat. The Member for Hong Lim once used an analogy of the Johore type of merger. Sir, the P.A.P. has twisted that to mean that he wants the Johore type of merger. Sir, I do not want to suggest that the Menther for Hong Lim has made a mistake. In all fairness to him, I must say he merely made the analogy in the context of a speech that he was making. But the desperate P.A.P. have tried to use that to make political capital. The Member for Hong Lim unwittingly played into the P.A.P. hands. Sir, we must correct this and straighten it out once and for all. There is no question of a mistake by the Barisan. Sir, we have stated in the past very clearly that we want merger. We have stated that we want complete merger. We have stated that we want a merger which is genuine and which can bring about genuine national unity. We have also stated that, in our view, merger arrangements which will create different classes of citizens, which will only further the disunity among our people and which will deny the people of Singapore a common political life with their brothers and sisters in the Federation, will not constitute genuine merger and will not bring about genuine national unity. There is no mistake about this, Mr Speaker. The records show clearly our stand. Because today the P.A.P. are politically bankrupt, they seek to distort and use half truths and untruths to defend their actions which are detrimental to national unity. Therefore, Sir, they have sought to use our analogy of Penang and Malacca, to use this completely out of context is order to distort our stand, because they hope by doing this they will show that our proposition will mean the disfranchisement of half of our citizens. They seek to discredit us by saying that we want half of our citizens to lose their citizenship rights. They have done this in the same way as they attempted to distort the analogy of Johore which was used by the Member for Hong Lim. Sir, there is no mistake as I have already stated. We have clearly asked for genuine merger with all Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on merger. Just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Deputy Prime Minister was speaking, he sought to suggest that the call for complete internal self-government was inconsistent with the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the merger issue. Sir, I do not want to start the debate on the whole question of reunification all over again. We have dealt with this matter at great length in the debate on the question of merger in this House last year. This cheap tactic of the P.A.P. to try and distort is not going to help them one wee bit. Sir, they say that we are communal in our approach and yet they seek to harp on autonomy in labour and education. They say that the Barisan made a mistake by asking for complete merger, because in a complete merger there will be no autonomy in education and labour. Sir, in all honesty, if the Government Members would admit, they would say that this is directed at the Chinese population in Singapore, and they have the cheek to stand up and say that it is the Barisan Sosialis that is playing the Chinese line. As I said, I have no intention of re-opening the debate on the whole question of merger. We have debated it at great length and our conscience is clear because we have no dirt to hide. As I also said, we are not the least perturbed at all these twists and turns, at all these lies and distortions of the P.A.P. Sir, the Prime Minister said that what the Government offer are realistic alternatives. We dispute this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Our people should not be compelled to choose one of these alternatives simply because the P.A.P. consider them realistic. What the P.A.P. consider realistic is not necessarily good for our people. It is not interest of national reunification. When the P.A.P. say that these alternatives are realistic, what they do, in fact, mean is necessarily in the that these are terms which are acceptable to the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Surely, Sir, what the Federation is prepared to accept is not necessarily good for the people of Singapore; it is not necessarily fair to the people of Singapore. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis refuse to accept the position where merger terms for Singapore are dictated by a handful of people in the Federation of Malaya. The fate of the people of Singapore should not be made to depend on the charity of a few men who hold power in their hands in the Federation. Sir, merger must mean genuine national reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. It must mean the genuine national unity of our people. This cannot be achieved if the people of Singapore are going to be treated as slaves. Sir, the P.A.P. say, "Merger now or never."

I never said that. "Merger now or later." There will be merger.

They say that if there is to be no merger now there will be no merger forever. The Prime Minister obviously denies this.

I never said that.

He will have his opportunity of refuting what I said. But there has been a suggestion in the past that either you accept merger on whatever the terms now or you will be doomed forever. Sir, this has been put to the Opposition in this House. This has been put to the people of Singapore in the form of threats, and the impression the P.A.P. seek to create is this: if we do not have merger on the terms they propose, then that would be the end of Singapore. That, in short, simply means that either you have merger now on the terms that the Federation Government are prepared to give, or you do not have merger in the future.

Nonsense!

However, we do not subscribe ---

Order. This is a debate of some importance. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to get up now on a point of elucidation. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Sir, never at any time will anybody in his right mind suggest that if there is no merger now there is to be no merger forever, for one very simple reason: that the analysis is that merger is inevitable. It either takes place now peacefully by consent or it will take place at some subsequent time with a great deal of trial and tribulation amidst general commotion for everybody and unhappiness for the whole of Malaya, including Singapore.

Sir, if the P.A.P. Government seriously believe that merger is inevitable - as we do believe that merger is historically inevitable - we say that if today we cannot get terms that are fair and reasonable to our people, we shall wait. We shall not be bullied and bulldozed into accepting terms that are unreasonable because the P.A.P. want to save their political career. I say that if they are honest in saying that they believe merger to be historically inevitable, then there is no need for this unnecessary hate. Sir, we believe that national reunification is inevitable and I say that if we have to wait for terms - if at all we have to wait; in the first place, we are not sure whether we have to wait, we are not sure whether the Federation Government will refuse out request for automatic Federal citizenship ---

On a point of elucidation. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

I would like to refer the hon. Member to a letter written by the Prime Minister of the Federation - which was as a result of a formal exchange of letters - tabled in this House, dated 13th November, 1961, and it is stated in the second last paragraph of this letter: `May I reiterate that the argument that all Singapore Citizens at the time of merger should automatically become Federation citizens cannot find acceptance under our Constitution?' This is a formal document which has been tabled in this House.

Sir, I shall shortly deal with the constitutional aspect of getting automatic citizenship. But what I do want to say here at this moment is briefly this. We consider that the P.A.P. are not in a position to negotiate terms with the Federation Government.

There is nothing to stop you from negotiating with them.

Sir, one cannot negotiate for terms if one does not have the moral standing to negotiate for them. Sir, the Government of the Federation of Malaya is not naive. The men who hold power in the Federation of Malaya are fully aware of the political situation in Singapore and they know to what extent the P.A.P. command the support of the people of Singapore. They know - although they may not admit it - that today the P.A.P. are not in a position to express the feelings of the people. They are morally not in a position to negotiate for terms for the people of Singapore. The Member for cairnhill indicated this many times when he made fun of the so-called autonomy in labour and education which the P.A.P. say had been got as a result of hard bargaining. Sir, it is clear that today the White Paper terms are being given to the P.A.P. Government and they have no other choice than to accept these terms. Our call have a conference of all the Parties in Singapore so that a common stand could be put to the Federation Government on the terms was not accepted by the P.A.P. And today the Prime Minister says that we can negotiate. We tell the P.A.P., Sir, that if they seriously want us to negotiate for terms, let them dissolve this Assembly, hold the elections and whichever party that Comes to power can negotiate for terms. They would then have a fresh and direct mandate from the people of Singapore. Sir, as I was saying, if we have to wait for better terms, in our view, that does not mean that we will never have merger. The Federation Government are bound to change their views if they do not want to accept our terms just now. Sir, it is well known that at one time they said, "No merger under any circumstances." But now they are prepared to consider merger of some sort. Sir, this is a sure indication that their views are bound to change further. And I say that this is historically inevitable. Of course, the P.A.P. cannot wait. We understand why they say this. We have stated time and again that the interest the P.A.P. have in these merger proposals is only to the extent that they will save their political career. We have no doubt whatsoever that the fate of the P.A.P. rests on their White Paper merger proposals, and that is why there is this hate, that is why there is going to be this unfair referendum, and that is why the P.A.P. say that they cannot wait. Sir, the P.A.P. keep on saying that it is impossible to get Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. Sir, the Federal Constitution, particularly Article 22, makes it possible for the Federation Government to determine the terms for any territory on merger with the Federation. That Article, as in fact the Member for Anson has indicated earlier, has been inserted in the constitution primarily for the purposes of deciding on terms on merger of a new territory. Sir, a lot of words have been uttered by the P.A.P. to try and ridicule our call for automatic Federal citizenship. Sir, by automatic citizenship, we do not mean that the Prime Minister has only to go to the Federation and play golf and on Merger Day every Singapore Citizen will automatically become a Federal citizen. We have never suggested this. We have never suggested that we can get automatic Federal citizenship if we do not talk it over with the Federation of Malaya. We have said that this is a matter that has to be negotiated and we say again that automatic citizenship is something that has to be negotiated with the Federation.

What makes you think you can write it into the Constitution?

Sir, this is yet another point on which the P.A.P. have sought to bluff the people. I do not want to say anything more at this juncture [Interruption] because at the right time and at the right place, not too long, you will know what the contents of the letters are. I must say this here, Sir. This is a reflection of the P.A.P. tactics.

The Barisan Sosialis!

The Prime Minister, as a private chap, sent a private letter to some close colleagues of his in maybe some part of the Federation on things that have got to do with the political life of this country. His Central Executive Committee does not know what letter he sent. Sir - the Member for Bras Basah is not here - only recently she said that although she was a member of the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P., she did not know what was happening in the P.A.P. And the 13 of us in the Barisan Sosialis know that this is how they operate. But - and this is thought projection - because they do this, they think we also know.

On a point of elucidation. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

All my correspondence with the Tunku has been published. It has been tabled in this House, and there is nothing to prevent the Member for Thomson from publishing his exchange of letters.

I think yesterday we had a promise from the Member for Choa Chu Kang that those letters would be published, or one letter would be published. Now the Member for Thomson has indicated that they will be published. So perhaps the Prime Minister can be a little patient. That letter will be published, as I understand from the remarks made.

They keep saying more - that it is a sell-out, that this is this, and this is that. But at the end they will know ---

Eat their words.

--- that they will have to eat their words; yes, that is right. But anyway I do not want to deal with this matter at this moment.

He does not dare to offend his master.

Do you know what is in the letter?

Order. I can see the Front Bench on the Government side seething with impatience. The letter will come, I understand.

Sir, as I said, we have stated that automatic Federal citizenship is a matter that has to be negotiated. We say that again that this is a matter that has to be negotiated. Sir, here it is interesting to recount the P.A.P. lies on citizenship. Once they said that Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens was impossible. When we exposed this lie by explaining that under the Federal Constitution it was possible for the Federation Government to grant Federal citizenship to all our citizens, the P.A.P. changed their line. This time they said it was reasonable. When we again exposed this, they again changed their line. And this time they talked in terms of super merger. Sir, I am sure we have never heard of this term "super merger" when the merger issue was debated in this House. The super merger talk only came about after the debate on the Referendum Bill started. They said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Barisan wanted more merger than the P.A.P. Sir, we tell them: we do not want more merger or less merger. What the P.A.P. seek to do is to get something very much less than merger. We want merger.

Point of information. Sir.

Arising from the speech?

Yes.

If the Member will give way.

No. Sir. The Minister will have his opportunity. I do not want my speech interrupted more than is necessary. I am sure the Minister has an opportunity to speak on this amend, ment. He will no doubt be given the opportunity. As I said, we do not want less merger or more merger. We want merger that will genuinely bring about national reunification.

You want complete merger.

We want complete merger ---

That is right.

--- on terms that are reasonable to the people of Singapore. We want terms that will not make our people second-class.

How second-class?

The P.A.P. attempt to hold a dishonest referendum, because they know that if they hold a genuine referendum, an honest referendum, the people will show them whether what they are getting is merger, less merger, bogus merger, or what have they.

Sir, on a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Sir, the Member for Thomson mentioned second-class citizens. I have already made it clear that in the opinion of the distinguished lawyer with him in his anti-merger campaign, there is no second-class citizen, and I would be greatly obliged if he would just answer the questions which I raised yesterday. Please do Second-class citizen - how?

Order. We are in open meeting. Perhaps in Committee straight talk across the Table is permissible sometimes. But I do not propose to answer those questions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to answer those questions apart from saying "yes". I am not a legal man and I am not using "second-class citizen" as a legal term. I am not interested in what legally second-class citizenship means. I am a layman and there are not very many lawyers out of 1.6 million people. The vast majority of them, 99.9 per cent recurrent, are laymen like me, and they know that if on merger there is going to be no common political life given to the people, if they are not going to be given the same rights and privileges as the citizens in the 11 other States in the Federation of Malaya, then they are treated as second-class citizens.

How?

You wait.

Order.

Sir, the P.A.P.'s attempt to hold a dishonest referendum is, in fact, to escape a categorical rejection of their White Paper proposals. Sir, the White Paper proposals are "no merger", and this is no Communist propaganda. This is what the Member for Cairnhill has said over and over again. He says it is merely a form of closer relationship. Sir, the Barisan is quite rightly against the White Paper proposals which the P.A.P. are trying to sell as merger.

You want complete merger.

We are told that the White Paper is merger. The Member for Cairnhill, who is a more trusted friend of the Federation Government than our Prime Minister ---

On a point of information, Sir.

The Member will not give way.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill, who is a more trusted friend of the Federation of Malaya than our Prime Minister is, says this is no merger. The White Paper proposals do not constitute merger. And we say it is not merger. But when we say this is not a merger, they say we want to frustrate merger. Why do they not say that the S.P.A. also want to frustrate merger, because the S.P.A. say this is closer relationship? The S.P.A. say this is no merger. Sir, the P.A.P. want a referendum on the White Paper because they are committed to holding one. We want a fair referendum. This the P.A.P. are not prepared to hold, because they know the people will reject the White Paper proposals in a fair and reasonable referendum. The Government oppose the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown which would have meant only one question. Now, Sir, we move this amendment, knowing full well that this is not going to be just one question but alternatives. And this amendment will put our stand to the people clearly. Sir, the only decent thing the Government can do is to accept the amendment. The Deputy Prime Minister says we do not have the support of the people; he says we are inconsistent; we do not have consistent policies. The Deputy Prime Minister has even suggested that we made a mistake by asking for complete merger, and that only their proposals for merger are fair proposals and only those will be accepted by the people. Here, Sir, there is an opportunity for them to accept the challenge - accept the amendment; the stand of the Barisan Sosialis as has been debated in this House last year at quite some length. Then we will see what the outcome is. Sir, a referendum is to ascertain the views of our people. It is not to force the people to support the White Paper proposals. The Government's obligation is to put the Barisan proposals to the people. It is not for the P.A.P. to decide whether the proposal is good or bad. It is for the people to decide. If this amendment is accepted, Sir, and if this proposal is put to the people, we will accept the verdict of the people whichever way it goes. 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has done a lot of somersaults before. But last night he said very clearly and categorically that he would like to present all forms of merger to the people. He said he would support that. And that was why he presented the third question. Now we have put up the fourth question which embodies the stand of the Opposition as was debated in the Legislative Assembly last year. Although the S.P.A. did not support our amendment then, I think, to be fair to himself as well as to everybody and to make sure he will not have to eat his own words again, the Member for Cairnhill should support our amendment, because it will allow a chance to the people to have a real choice of all the forms of merger which the political Parties in this House have put forward. Sir, if you see the alternatives which are put before the House at the present moment, the first two are from the P.A.P., the third is supposedly from the S.P.A. But, as I have already indicated, they all come from the same source and have the same theme. They are all tailored to suit the whims and fancies of Federal politicians and, of course, since they are acceptable to the Federal politicians, they are presented to the House. But let us ask all our representatives in this House: let them ask themselves solemnly whether they are representatives of the people of Singapore, or whether they are representatives of the Federation. Let us ask them: when they were elected to this Assembly, whether the general elections were held in Kuala Lumpur or in Singapore. An hon. Member: Peking.

Not in Peking either.

I do not know whether our Prime Minister was elected in Tanjong Pagar or in Tanjong Rambutan! Because if we are representatives of Singapore, then we must speak on behalf of the interests of Singapore.

Hear, hear!

And not --- An hon. Member: Peking.

--- for the interests of other places. I remember, Sir, that the Prime Minister last year during the merger debate suggested to us that we could ask Mr Lim Kean Siew and Mr Seenivasagam of the Socialist Front and the Progressive Party respectively to put a motion in the Federal Parliament to suggest automatic citizenship on merger. That is an absurd suggestion and that alone goes to prove that our suggestion of automatic citizenship was not unrealistic. Even the Tunku himself said so, that it was possible. At that time he said the only thing was that he would not grant it. That is all. But it was possible. That is the point which we want to stress, and what the Member for Thomson has already stressed. The only trouble with our Prime Minister and the P.A.P. is that they went to negotiate on bended knees and they never had the support of the people of Singapore behind them. I do not want to repeat what the Member for Thomson has already said. The fact that our stand on merger is good is even admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education the other night. He said, "Yes, the Barisan Sosialis stand is very good."

He does not understand it.

The only thing, he said, was that it was not realistic. Let us ask him - realistic to whom? To himself or to the people of Singapore? Of course, Sir, it may sound unrealistic to certain people, perhaps to P.A.P. politicians, or perhaps to Federation politicians at the present moment, or to the Prime Minister who has to run to the Federation for succours in order that he may get the hand-outs to keep him in office. But to us in Singapore, Sir, our suggestion for automatic citizenship and proportional representation is very realistic. To us it means the only basis for merger. It is the only fair and just basis for merger, because, as you know, Sir, merger is not only a merger of two territories but also a merger of two peoples. If you want to have merger, then you must have the mutual consent of the peoples of the two territories. The conditions of merger must work towards mutual interest and mutual benefit. That is the only way we can have a happy merger and a happy Malaysia. If you have one party having all the advantages over the other, you are just laying the ground for future trouble. That would not lead to national unity. It would lead to national disunity, as we have stressed time and time again. Therefore, when we talk of merger - even if we want to talk on the mode and manner of merger - our choices must not be limited to what other people want to accept. The choices must be on what we in Singapore want. I hope the Front Bench on this side of the House as well as the P.A.P. will realise this. It is only when you really ascertain the views of the people in Singapore that you can say that you have an honest referendum. If you pose questions which are limited to the choices of the P.A.P., then it is ascertaining the views of the P.A.P. and not of the people. The Prime Minister himself has repeatedly said that the referendum is to ascertain the views of the majority of the people of Singapore - the views of the people of Singapore, and not the views of the P.A.P. Let him remember that. In any honest referendum, the people should be allowed an opportunity to express their wishes and choice on the mode and manner - even if they insist on this "mode and manner". From our point of view, we think that our stand on merger - complete merger with automatic citizenship and proportional representation - will have the backing of the majority of the people of Singapore. Therefore, if the P.A.P. want to put up a semblance of honesty - they are not honest; everybody knows it - but even if they want to put up a semblance of honesty - let them accept our amendment and put up our stand for the people to accept or reject. The Member for Anson gave a very picturesque analogy the other day. He spoke about a girl wanting to get married to a man. If she wants to get married to A, it does not mean that she must accept B, C, or D who happens to come along. Surely she has a right to wait until A comes along. Of course on merger, Sir, we can wait. The only trouble with the Prime Minister is that he cannot afford to wait, because merger to him is the means of political survival. Without merger he knows he is finished.

He is finished anyway.

Yes, I agree. He is finished anyway.

Order. It seems to be a habit in this Chamber for supporters of a speaker to interject. I have never come across that in any other Parliament. We get interjections from across the Floor, but not from Back-benches. And it happens on both sides of the House.

The whole trouble with our Prime Minister is that he wants to deliver Singapore bound hand and foot to the Federation because - I do not know - maybe he hopes to be a Tun sometime, maybe he hopes to get a safe seat in the Senate; maybe he is thinking of becoming a United Nations representative, and somebody has said that he is looking forward to being the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. I do not know. Anyone of these is a possibility. An hon. Member: In fact, he is a Prime Minister!

But the main thing is this. If we are to go in, we must go in on terms which are fair and just to the people of Singapore, not just to the P.A.P. Let them remember this. They always give the excuse that the White Paper merger proposals were the best that they could get. They say that those were the best possible terms that they could get. The Member for Thomson has stressed that at that time they were in no position to negotiate, and therefore how could they get better terms? On this particular aspect, even the Secretary-General of the S.P.A. has, on many occasions, publicly stated that the present terms are not the best possible terms. The Member for Cairnhill also says he could get better terms for Singapore on merger; let him deny it after this. Therefore, those so-called best possible terms are not the best possible terms. The Member for Thomson reminded us that at one time the Tunku did not want merger. Now they have come round to wanting merger. We know for a fact that they want Singapore so much that if only we stand firm the terms will have to be improved. It is not that we want to get into the Federation. It is the Federation wanting to take in Singapore. Let us remember that very carefully. The mere fact that the P.A.P. had to reveal the terms of the merger proposals bit by bit showed that they were afraid that their merger proposals would not be acceptable to the people.. They already realised then that they had to hide their shameful deal from the eyes of the people - always talking of nationals and citizenship! May I be permitted to refer to what the Minister for Finance said? I refer, Sir, to the Official Report of the 10th of July, at page 39, [Vol. 19, No. 2, col. 195] the last paragraph. He said: `Sir, the truth of the matter is that Singapore citizens retain all the rights that they now possess.' Quite right, Sir. `In addition, they acquire new rights as nationals of the new Federation.' What are the new rights of the nationals? As far as we know, Sir, they have the right to possess a passport; they have the right to being equal before the courts. But these, Sir, are rights which we possess in Singapore at the present moment. So what are those new special rights which the Minister for Finance talked about? Any person in a democratic society is equal in a court of law. Why must they be nationals before they can be equal in a court of law? In Singapore, we have our Singapore passports. Does it make any difference whether we get our passports from Kuala Lumpur or from Singapore? But the one thing which the Minister for Finance has not dared to say is this: by becoming nationals, Singapore citizens will have the right to be called up for military service. Now this is an obligation and a duty and also a right in a way. But if you want a man to fight for a country, make sure that he gets all the rights and privileges of that country. Do not treat him as a second-class citizen and ask him to fight for that country. This is a sell-out of the P.A.P. They talk of merger. Yet after merger, the Singapore citizen who becomes a Federal national or a Malaysian national has to go into the Federation as an alien and will be treated like an alien because he cannot have all the rights and privileges of a Federal citizen. How can you call this "merger" under those circumstances? Let me go further down the same paragraph. He said: `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.' And somewhere a few lines from the bottom of the page, he says: `He loses none of these rights after merger.' I was very interested to read about the comparison of the pros and cons of the P.A.P. type of merger. He says, "He loses none of these rights after merger." I challenge that statement. Let us go back to the fifth line of the paragraph: `He has a right of franchise, that is, he has a right to choose who shall govern Singapore.' Very right, Sir - "He has a right to choose who shall govern Singapore." But let us ask him what sort of Government will he choose? Will he choose a Government that has the powers that we have at the present moment? Is that not something that will be lost? At the present moment, Sir, however weak we may be, however limited our powers, Singapore still has three-sevenths of the power in the Internal Security Council. But let us see what happens when we go into the Central Parliament. Let us see what happens when we have this humbug of a merger. We will get fifteen seats in an enlarged Parliament of say 150 seats. The proportion of power that Singapore will get will be 15 upon 150. What is that? That is one-tenth. From three-sevenths of the power that we can get in our own Government, we are going to get only one-tenth of the power, is that not a reduction? Is that not something lost? I do not have to say anything about the 25 per cent of the revenue which Singapore will lose to the Central Government. At the present moment, Sir, we control every cent of our own money in Singapore. After this humbug of a merger, 25 per cent of the revenue from Singapore will be controlled by the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur. Is that not a loss? Sir, whenever we say "second-class citizen", they say it is not true. They say that some legal opinion has been given saying that there is no such thing as a second-class citizen. Second-class citizenship, Sir, is something which you feel, something which you know ---

Old tune.

I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education does not like to hear it because he has already sold out the rights of Singapore. We have already told him repeatedly, but he does not like to hear it I ask him to go out into the streets and coffee-shops. Everybody will be able to tell him something which he does not understand himself, that by encouraging this type of merger, they are going to turn Singapore citizens into second-class citizens. They asked, "How can this be so?" I have already indicated a little while back that our powers in our own Government will be reduced. The citizens will not be able to elect a Government that will have full powers to deal with our own affairs in Singapore. As regards internal security, at the present moment, we still have three-sevenths of the power, whereas once we go into the Central Parliament we get only one-tenth. Money? - one-quarter gone. But what is more important, Sir - anybody will be able to see it straightaway - is that at the present moment, Singapore will be sending only fifteen representatives to the Central Parliament. We have 624,000 citizens in Singapore. Let us do a little bit of arithmetic, Sir. Divide 624,000 by 15, and you will find that it works out to somewhere in the region of 41,000 citizens. In other words, 41,000 Singapore citizens will be electing one representative to the Central Parliament. Let us look at the Central Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. At the present moment, they have 104 seats, and their total electorate is somewhere in the region of 2.3 million. I am not sure of the figure, Sir, but it is approximately that. If you do a little bit of arithmetic and divide this 2.3 million citizens by 104, you will find that you get a figure of 21,000 or 22,000. In other words, 22,000 citizens in the Federation will be able to elect one representative to the Central Parliament. In the case of Singapore, 41,000 citizens can elect only one representative to the Central Parliament. Any three-year old child will be able to tell our Government Ministers that that means our citizenship value is nearly half the citizenship value of the Federation citizens. If you add on the rural weight-age, you will find that in many cases the value of the Singapore citizenship is only a quarter of the value of the Federation citizenship in certain areas in the Federation. So this second-class citizenship is clear. It is easily demonstrated and anybody with a little bit of feeling and a little bit of intelligence will be able to see straightaway ---

Have you any?

But it looks as if such intelligence is not to be found in our Minister for Education. Let me refer again to the same transcript, page 43 [Vol. 19, No. 2, cols. 201-2], also in a speech by the Minister for Finance. It is in the third paragraph. He was asking how would the Singapore citizen be better off if we had automatic conversion, and he said he could only see advantages 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.' Sir, he says these advantages are not of fundamental importance. You see, Sir, how the Minister for Finance in his prepared speech talked about this citizenship right being not fundamental. He thinks it is of no importance whatsoever. He belittles the basic fundamental right in any parliamentary democracy. If we are to rely on the one man one vote system, the only way to make sure that you have your voice heard is to see that you have the voting right. If you do not have the voting right, your voice is not heard, and you will not be able to influence the Government or pressure the Government to make any new change you consider necessary. And here you see, Sir, the Minister for Finance saying that these are not important things. These are the basic and fundamental things. If you have merger, Sir, it is a case of merger of the peoples and of all the peoples coming together and having a common political life. The citizens of Singapore should have the right to go to the Federation to influence the Federation citizens, and vice versa, so that the Central Parliament will be able to pursue a policy which will be acceptable to the peoples of both the territories. It is only then, Sir, that you can change the Government or change the Ministers who do not happen to agree with your views at periodic intervals. There is no other way, Sir, and yet our Minister for Finance says this is unimportant. I know, for example, the Minister for Finance stays in Cairnhill. At the present moment, he is the Member for Kreta Ayer. That is very far away, Sir, If he subscribes to this policy of his, it amounts to this, that by staying in Cairnhill he will not be able to go to Kreta Ayer to stand for election, and if he wants to go to Kreta Ayer to stand for election, then he will have to go to Kreta Ayer and stay there for 10 years. Or our Deputy Prime Minister, who stays in Tanglin, will not be able to go to Rochore to stand for election ---

But I have.

That is the whole trouble. You have and yet you want to deny these rights ---

Order. I have already remarked in the past that the Member for Queenstown loses his temper so easily; he forgets he is in this Chamber. The Speaker is trying to keep this Assembly as august as possible.

He cannot behave himself.

So, Sir, these are very important rights which the citizens of Singapore must have. These are not unimportant trivialities as the Minister for Finance makes them out to be. On them depend all the basic and fundamental rights that operate in a parliamentary democracy.

Why do you not go to Malacca?

Then, Sir, may I refer you to page 40? I want to refer to paragraph 2 [col. 196], Sir. The Minister for Finance was talking about equality before the law, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and all that, and then in the second paragraph: "`Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion.'" I want to stress, Sir, on the words, "Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution". Therefore, Sir, what we have at the present moment can easily be changed if the Central Parliament by a motion change the constitution. As you may know, Sir, not so very long ago, they had amendments in the Federal Constitution. In fact, they have already had three changes in the Federal Constitution in the short period of a few years. So what guarantee do we have that there will be no more changes again?

Go and join the Federation.

That is the point, Sir. He says, "Go and join the Federation.

Order. I have pulled up the Deputy Prime Minister once before. I would suggest that he try not to interject, because I might remind him that the Speaker or the Chairman, whoever takes the Chair, relies to a great extent on the Leader of the House to keep order.

So, Sir, unless we have this proportional representation in order to have our influence felt in the Central Parliament, unless we have the possibility of going into the Federation and influencing the voters or to stand for election inside the Federation so that we can get our voice heard inside the Federation, we will not be able to exert any pressure at all on the Government that may want to change the Constitution. It is simple logic, Sir, and I hope the Minister for Finance will be able to understand all this. Sir, a lot of play has been made about our letter to the Tunku and it is a pity the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance are not here. They have all the time chided us to reveal the contents of, our letter to the Tunku. We had not, wanted to reveal the letter, Sir, not just to please them. No, it is not our intention to make political capital out of the letter which we sent to the Tunku. But very unfortunately for the Ministers opposite, they did not know the actual contents, and because they did not know, they sought deliberately to misinterpret and distort the contents of our letter that, we sent to the Tunku. By so doing, they had hoped to convince their own Backbenches that our letter to the Tunku was to ask for special terms on merger, and because we had refused to divulge what is in that letter, therefore, that letter meant that the Tunku had refused us. You will notice, Sir, that every time they talked about our letter, they linked it up with the letter which the Member for Anson wrote to the Tunku, and by so doing they had hoped that they could confuse their own supporters who - I believe there are some who are maybe dissatisfied with the ways of their leaders. As I say, Sir, it is not our intention to make political capital out of our exchange of letters, unlike the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the P.A.P. who will stoop to almost anything. May I at this stage, Sir, say that when our Secretary-General wrote to the Tunku, he wrote with the full approval of the Central Executive Committee. It is a pity their Special Branch did not know about this. Because our telephones are, all tapped and their Special Branch spies follow us around all the time. I am sure they must turn to MI5 now, if their Special Branch does not prove to be good enough. Anyway, whatever we do in the Barisan Sosialis we do collectively, unlike some of the P.A.P. Ministers who, as far as I remember, used to make speeches and those speeches then became policies of the Government. That was a bit too much for us to stomach at that time and because of that we ultimately had to leave the P.A.P. As I say, Sir, since the P.A.P. have been trying to make political capital out of our letter to the Tunku and since they have been trying to confuse and mislead the people, I think it is appropriate that we now expose their lies and innuendoes concerning our letter which had at one time caused a sensation in the local Press. The P.A.P. at first fabricated the falsehood about our Secretary-General having gone to hand a letter personally to the Tunku, until we exposed the falsehood. Of course, after we had exposed the falsehood, they changed their line and now say that it is our Assistant Secretary-General. That is quite true as we pointed out at that time. Sir, since there has been so much talk about our letter, let me read out the contents of the letter which our Secretary-General wrote to the Tunku. Before doing that, may I quote the Official Transcript of the 9th of July, 1962, at page 27 [Vol. 19, No. 1, col. 39]; the Prime Minister was talking about the Member for Anson having tried to write to the Tunku, and then he added: 'And even the Communist-controlled Barisan Sosialis, through their open front Secretary-General, Mr Lim Ching Siong, in April, a few months ago, sent a letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman by the personal hand of the Assistant Secretary-General. What the letter contains presumably is only known to the Secretary-General and the Tunku. But everybody can guess what this gesture of peace-making was aimed at. However, the very fact that neither the letter nor the response of the Tunku to the letter has ever been made public ---' Dr Toh Chin Chye: Even to the Chairman. The Prime Minister: --- probably even to the Chairman of the Party, is in itself significant.' I can assure you, Sir, this letter is somewhere in the middle of my April-May file. So the original copy of the letter has been with me from the very first day. It is not that. I do not know about it. May I again refer you to page 39 [col. 58], Sir, it is in the third paragraph: 'Dr Goh Keng Swee: I hope the Member for Queenstown will come to the point quickly. Now, his Secretary-General has written a letter to the Tunku ---'. And then you pulled him up on a point of order. I will now read you the letter which we sent to the Tunku. It is dated 27th March, 1962: 27th March 1962 Singapore. Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, Prime Minister, The Federation of Malaya, Federation House, Singapore. Dear Tunku, We gladly welcome your desire to see the creation of one country, sharing a common feeling, outlook and destiny. We wish to assure you that in this desire for national unity, we are completely with you. Like you, we also want to see that nothing will come about that may cause any disruption to the present harmony existing among the people of our country. We feel that much of the unhappy feelings about Singapore have arisen from a lack of opportunities for apparently divergent views to be adequately discussed so that a happy and lasting solution could be obtained for the benefit of all our people. And we feel that a free and frank exchange of views and discussion between us can contribute a great deal towards national unity. It is with this in mind that we take this opportunity of your visit to Singapore to write to you, hoping you will be able to grant us an opportunity to meet you. Should you be unable to see us at this juncture, we would be glad to welcome any other occasion convenient to you at any future date. With our best regards to you, I remain, Yours sincerely, Sgd. LIM CHIN SIONG Secretary-General.' Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Order. The hon. Member knows the rules. After a document is read, it should be tabled. Perhaps the hon. Member will table the document. Copies could be taken from the original document which could then be handed back.

This is not the original, Sir; this is only a copy of it. The original was sent to the Tunku. So, you see, Sir, it is a simple letter with no asking for special terms, which they have misconstrued. We never asked for anything special. We merely asked for an interview in order that we might the better be able to present the Tunku with the other side of the picture in Singapore. We realised that the P.A.P. had given the Tunku a distorted version of what was happening in Singapore, and we felt it our duty to present to the Tunku the proper side of the picture. Then, it would be for the Tunku to decide, because, as you can know by now, Sir, the P.A.P. are the greatest of distortionists and fabricators. It is only right and proper that we in the Opposition, who have had our views shut off from the radio, from Rediffusion and from the Press, be given an opportunity to tell the Tunku exactly what was happening. To complete the record, let me read to you the reply which he gave us. It is a copy of the letter which he sent to us. It is headed: `Perdana Menteri, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Kuala Lumpur, Rumah Persekutuan Singapore 27th March 1962.' And it reads: `Dear Mr Lim, Thank you for your letter and for your assurance that you are completely at one with me in the desire for national unity and preservation of the present harmony existing between the people of Malaya. I note your request for an opportunity to have a free and frank exchange of views. Unfortunately, however, I am unable to meet you during this visit to Singapore as I have two engagements in Kedah which necessitate my leaving Singapore early tomorrow morning. I will, however, be pleased to meet you and other leaders of the Barisan Sosialis at some future date, and I will let you know when this can be arranged. Thank you for your kind regards, I am, Yours sincerely. Sgd. PRIME MINISTER FEDERATION OF MALAYA.' Sir, this is the exchange of letters which caused such a hullabaloo in Singapore at that time. Everybody was wondering what was happening. The P.A.P. tried to make great political capital out of it. We allowed them to, in order to give them enough rope to hang themselves. As expected, they hanged themselves, because they did not know what was in the letter. Even here in this House, they have been trying to put all sorts of meanings and interpretations into our letters. Now that I have read those letters to you, you will see that what they sought to read into our letters has no foundation of truth.

4.35 p.m. It is a completely polite letter from the Tunku, with a promise to see us later; but so much was read into the exchange of letters, Sir, that we had to issue a statement on the 6th of April. This is what we said. It is only a very ---

Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do enquire whether these fascinating details are in any way pertinent to the motion before the Rouse. I would urge, Sir, if I may, that the Member for Queenstown remember that we are subject to a "guillotine".

I think the Member for Queenstown is in order to quote the letters exchanged between the Barisan Sosialis and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, while discussing the question before this House, it is perfectly legitimate to reveal the information, and so far the Member is completely in order. Dr Lee.

Anyway, Sir, concerning this letter, there is not very much left - only a small hit. About our statement which we issued on the 6th of April, we were commenting on the attack on us by the P.A.P. in their political statements issued to the Press. `We are firmly opposed to any policy based on racial discrimination, yet we who are opposed to the present proposals based on racial discrimination, are accused of being racialists, while the P.A.P. leaders, who are trying to impose this policy based on racial prejudices on the people, call themselves non-racialists. How twisted can the P.A.P. logic become? It was because of our concern for the extremely dangerous communal drift and to present the true feelings of the people of Singapore to the Tunku that we had instructed the Secretary-General of our Party, Mr Lim Ching Siong, to write to the Tunku with a view to seeking a way to halt the present deterioration. We have not, as the P.A.P. has alleged, pledged our support for the P.A.P.'s White Paper merger proposals that is their unfortunate lie, Sir - or for the present Malaysia plan. We have been consistently against these proposals, and our stand remains the same. Hence our present campaign to expose the P.A.P. sell out'. One more paragraph, Sir, a short one: 'The P.A.P. has also spread the falsehood that our Secretary-General had gone to Cuscaden Road to see the Tunku without an appointment. The truth is that the letter to the Tunku was delivered by hand by our Assistant Secretary-General of the Party, Dr Poh Soo Kai, who handed the letter to the Tunku's Press Secretary at Federation House in Cuscaden Road,' Sir, that is the episode of the exchange of letters which has caused so much commotion and which has given the P.A.P. such a headache. They twisted our stand this way and that way, and now it has been shown very clearly that the P.A.P. - who all the time were in the dark - had been trying to confuse and mislead the people. Let me tell the P.A.P. this: even if the Federal politicians should not grant us equality, that does not mean that we should not fight for equality. The Prime Minister has obligations and duties, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, to fight for the rights of Singapore, and I ---

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. The Member does not give way.

I will tell him, if he calls himself the Prime Minister of Singapore, let him work for the interests of Singapore. If he wants to fight for the interests of the Federation, let him go to the Federation and leave Tanjong Pagar. Sir, what are the choices before us? The P.A.P. White Paper, as we have said, is a phoney merger, with phoney autonomy in education and labour. I have already explained to you about second-class citizenship. I have already touched on the fact that we have not got proportional representation, and because if the unequal and unjust terms, the proposed merger will lead not to national unity but to national disunity. In fact, it will lead to a widening of communal differences which I do not wish to touch on. It will not lead to unification of the people and will not give independence to Singapore. The slogan "Independence through merger" is the humbug which the P.A.P. have been trying to sell to the people of Singapore. There is no independence. Let us see the second alternative. It is couched in very vague terms. It is open to too many interpretations and can mean whatever the P.A.P. distortionists want it to mean. There is no White Paper on it and, in effect, the people are asked to choose something which is not only vague but also something which they know hardly anything about. It amounts to giving the P.A.P. a blank cheque. Who wants to give the P.A.P. a blank cheque? As it is, the P.A.P. are untrustworthy enough and nobody has any confidence in them. Therefore, it is very difficult for the voter to decide on it and to vote for it. About the third alternative, Sir, I have already indicated that it is another unknown quantity, and it is not a genuine choice which is being posed to the people. Now, what we want is a genuine choice. You must give a choice which is acceptable to the people - something which they can choose. The fact that the voter is not allowed to say "No" is proof enough, Sir, that the P.A.P. know that the choices that they are offering to the people are not acceptable to the vast majority. There is no justification whatsoever for them to say that the people cannot say "No". Sir, we ask that we in Singapore be allowed to have a genuine and honest choice of the type of merger that the people want. As has been suggested by the Member for Cairnhill, let all the Parties go and explain to the people their respective stands on merger, on the questions which will be posed in the referendum. Let the Government admit that we have a right to ask another question to be proposed to the people. It is our duty to convince the people as to the most suitable form of merger for Singapore. It is simple, it is fair, and at least, under the circumstances since they have insisted on the mode and manner - there will be less complaints. At the present moment, the P.A.P. have the Radio, Rediffusion, and the Press all under their control. I do not think they need worry as to what the Opposition Parties will do. They do not have to worry about the Opposition Parties telling the people what they are supposed to know. What the Opposition Parties can do, I should say, the P.A.P., with all the facilities at their command, should be able to do much better. Therefore, they need have no fear of allowing a fourth choice to be offered to the people. Let them accept our amendment to put a fourth alternative. Let them not try to railroad merger with this humbug of their three choices. Sir, our stand is well known. It has been debated in this Assembly and the people, in spite of the P.A.P. distortion, know that we stand for automatic conversion and for proportional representation. I want to remind the S.P.A. once again of their statement that they want a genuine choice to be posed to the people. Now is the time for the S.P.A. to support our amendment. Let all the possible alternatives acceptable to the people of Singapore be posed to them for their choosing. Then let the people decide. Only then will the definition of "referendum" as given by the Prime Minister, that it is a process to ascertain the views of the majority of the people of Singapore, hold true. Remember it is to ascertain the views of the people of Singapore, not the views of the P.A.P. 4.49 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis. Let me now speak on it. Before I speak on the main subject, I should like to touch on the subject of the untrustworthiness of the Prime Minister. His words are usually not trustworthy.

Order. The Member for Stamford has already spoken on the main motion. She has indicated that she is now going to speak on the amendment, and any irrelevancies on her part will be ruled completely out of order. So, will the Member please come back to the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I can guarantee that what I wish to speak on is related to our amendment. Because the Prime Minister has told us previously that what we wanted he could give us. This remark was quoted by the Member for Cairnhill yesterday. I do not wish to speak on it again. The amendment by the Barisan Sosialis is just to see whether the Prime Minister can accede to it, Mr Deputy Speaker. I frankly tell this House that we Barisan Sosialis strongly oppose the phoney merger proposals as suggested by the P.A.P. The White Paper on merger is not a genuine merger. To expose this phoney merger is not only the responsibility of the people but also that of the Barisan Sosialis. Tunku Abdul Rahman has said that the negotiations started by the P.A.P. are not for a merger but for a closer relationship.

On a point of order. In the November debate last year I tabled an exchange of letters between myself and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, in which he said: 'May I refer to your letter of the 11th November, 1961, regarding the representation in the new Federation Parliament which is contained in paragraph 15 of the memorandum forming the basic proposals for merger of Singapore.' I do not know whether the Member for Stamford has read this document or has had it translated to her. "Merger" is what is referred to by the Tunku in his letter in the official exchange of letters.

I might want to add something to that point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Order. If the Chair requires the assistance of any Member, then it will call on that Member. I think the Chair is completely competent to carry on in this Assembly. Miss Fung Yin Ching. [Interruption] Is it a point of order?

It is, Sir, I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that there is other information on that point of order.

Order. The Member for Anson has spoken on the main motion and he will have an Opportunity to speak on the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson which we are debating now. He can raise this matter later, as a matter of information or elucidation. He can bring up his point then. Miss Fung Yin Ching.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what the Prime Minister has said just now seems to me as if he wants to prove that the P.A.P. White Paper on merger is a genuine merger. But yesterday the Member for Cairnhill said that the proposal in the White Paper is not a real merger. It is only half merger. I do not know what ideas the Prime Minister has on this aspect of the matter.

We are not debating the motion, we are now on the amendment.

I have ruled, before the Member for Stamford started to speak, that she can speak on the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson. Miss Fung Yin Ching.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the stand of the Barisan Sosialis is that the Government should not run away from its responsibilities, but the circumstances prevailing today are different. If they insist on going on, they will have no way out. The provisions in the National Referendum Bill have been debated in this House and the Bill has been passed. We find it necessary to bring up this amendment now. I want to quote from the Prime Minister's words to prove that our amendment is reasonable. It represents our stand on merger. Our Chairman has clearly stated it. I want to quote some speeches by the Prime Minister as recorded in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 8th of July. It was reported in the newspaper that at a Press conference broadcast over Radio Singapore, when the Tunku was in Singapore, The Prime Minister of Singapore was asked, if he had his way, whether he would have a national referendum. What was his view on it, a Press reporter asked him. For the sake of the official record of this House and not to misquote him, I would like to read all that the Prime Minister said. He is reported to have said, "I have said in the past what I thought about this. Let me repeat it. In the Legislative Assembly we have secured enough power and rights. I am not worried about the proposed merger, because my view is that the Communists know that the crux of the problem is here. The Communists want to spread hatred and disorder among the people, so that they can then do what they like. I feel very sorry about this. I cannot agree with the Tunku. I believe we know more of the hopes and aspirations of the Singapore Chinese. We want to give them a choice. If they honestly think that the Penang or Malacca type of merger, as suggested by the Barisan, is what they like, or the Johore type, as suggested by the Member for Hong Lim, or ---"

It is nearly time for the tea-break. I do not know how all these speeches are relevant to the amendment by the Member for Thomson. I suspend this sitting until half-past five. Order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

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.

I would suggest to the Government Whip and the Opposition Whips, if there are Opposition Whips, that they should see to it, as part of their duties, that the business of this Assembly is not impeded because of a lack of a quorum.

Debate resumed.

An amendment moved by the Member for Thomson, at the end of the Original Question, as amended, to add a new paragraph. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I quoted the speech by the Prime Minister to prove that the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis is reasonable. Let me read the last paragraph of the Prime Minister's speech. Just now I said about the suggestion put forward by the Member for Anson is on an equal basis with the 11 States of the Federation of Malaya, on complete and unconditional merger. If they are given the preferences and if they do not make up their own minds, they cannot put the blame on others. Consequently they have nothing to lose. There is a certain remark made by the Prime Minister. In this remark I personally feel that the Prime Minister is quite democratic and just. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister in his speech has distorted the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. I feel it necessary to point out here - I hope the Prime Minister will let the people have a genuine choice - a free choice - and not to compel them to make a choice between two alternatives which are unacceptable to them. Only through the right of free choice will the people not feel neglected eventually. This is very important. The people must be given a real choice and not a superficial choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis is very reasonable and just because it will reflect the true and real stand of the Barisan Sosialis. If this amendment by us is again defeated and rejected by the Government, then I believe that this is the beginning of a tragedy. This tragedy will be inevitable. Nevertheless, the people of this country are now facing a crucial challenge in the history of this country. If we look at it from the objective point of view, the transitional struggle is only one aspect of the whole struggle. Today the Government is dependent on the minority in this House.

Order. We must not go back on that tack now. That has all been disposed of, I hope. We are now on the amendment. I think what the hon. Lady must do now is to urge that the words in the amendment be added to the motion. She must confine herself, as far as she can, to the amendment itself and not to generalities.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the contents of our amendment have been dealt with by my Chairman and the Member for Thomson, Therefore, I will not repeat it here. I hope the Government will not reject our amendment this time. The right to choose is the fundamental right of the people. As remarked by the Prime Minister, let the people make the choice so that they will not be neglected in the future, so that they will not feel they are losing anything. I fully support the amendment by the Member for Thomson.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have now before us, it seems to me, four doors into Malaya and Malaysia. As to which of these doors is the best is a thing that we want the people to express themselves on at the referendum. Whether the fourth door is an 'open' door, or a 'closed' door to us is a matter which none of us in Singapore has the right to say, because the bolt is on the other side. It is for those in the Federation to, say whether they want to unbolt the door. As far as we are concerned, Sir, on the S.P.A. side, we will welcome the fourth door, if the bolt is pushed back. An hon. Member: What about Borneo?

Order.

Judging from what I have heard outside talking with the common people, I find they are very confused. The longer we debate this merger issue, the more confused they become, because of the many side issues being brought in. In fact, only this morning a kampong dweller came to my house for advice. He said he and his friends would like to know just one thing: "Will Malaysia benefit people like me or not?" That is all he wants to know. He is not interested in the right of voting in the Federation because he would not be a politician. He cannot afford to be a politician. He cannot afford to travel to the Federation. So he just wants an assurance that Malaysia will be of benefit to people like him. Thus reduced to that simple issue, despite all the talk and arguments, the pros and cons (I would say the defects also), I have no hesitation in saying that Singapore, because of its geographical position, will benefit by being part of Malaysia. In fact, in my opinion, Sir, Singapore cannot afford to be isolated from Malaysia, just as Great Britain now finds that she cannot afford to be isolated and excluded from the European Common Market. In fact, Sir, I believe Singapore economically will receive new vitality, new strength, new resources. She will become an economic magnet attracting new capital, new enterprises, new industries, and naturally that will be of great benefit to the workers, the unemployed and to the young people in Singapore who are now queuing up for jobs.

Order. I suppose that has some reference to the amendment we are debating. I cannot see it at the moment, but we are debating an amendment. All these remarks, I should imagine, will come in very useful when the Member, if he so desires, wishes to speak on the Original Question as amended. But if he can relate what he is saying to the amendment, then he is in order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to range over the whole field.

Order. In that case, I am afraid the Member cannot do that. He is now speaking on an amendment and he should now speak for or against it and leave it at that. Once the amendment has been disposed of, then the hon. Member will have his chance of ranging over the whole field.

Sir, this fourth proposition is like a door which was tried long ago and was closed and bolted. The term "genuine merger" is not in the vocabulary of any historian. I would like to say, as a humble student of history, when we talk about forms of closer political association, we do not talk about genuine forms or phoney forms ---

Barisan Sosialis forms.

There are certain main types of forms which have existed historically. We are told by historians that certain types fit certain situations. The form that the Barisan Sosialis proposes and discusses as merger, which really is just a form of merger, or closer political association, envisages that all citizens will automatically become Federal citizens on Merger Day. If it were in our power to say so, we would say, "Yes, we agree." But it is not in our power. It is like a man buying some goods. What I wish to pay may not be acceptable to the seller. I therefore cannot insist that the seller must sell at my price. If we insist, Sir, that is not showing a spirit of true socialism and brotherhood, but of imperialism, of demand, and I think, between Malays and Chinese, and Indians, there must not be a spirit of demand. There must be a spirit of goodwill and brotherhood. As we learn to trust one another, we will find that more will be given without that demand being made. As we become Malaysian-minded, then all these four distinctions will disappear. Sir, if the fourth door is closed and bolted, are we therefore to say to the people of Singapore, "Do not enter through any of the other doors?" I think that is being negative. Can we say to the people of Singapore, "Be satisfied with your state of increasing unemployment. Wait until the door is unbolted. Never mind if there are more and more thousands of young people unemployed. Never mind if wages cannot rise. Never mind if capital keeps on running to the Federation. If factories go to Johore, Petaling Jaya and Penang, never mind."? I think that is not being realistic. Very likely if the Barisan Sosialis had been with the P.A.P. at this time, they would have said all the three doors are good must say that even in our own Party sometimes there are people like that. I think in every Party there are people who put party politics first. But we believe, Sir, that in the interest of the country we must have more and more people who will say we put the national interest first.

Hear, hear!

Even if it means accepting from our political foe something which is good, we will accept it provided it is good for the country. With that attitude and in that spirit, I think we all agree that for Singapore there cannot be a "no" to the entry of Singapore into Malaysia. For the sake of the people, it must be "yes". The only decision we have to make is the mode and manner of entry. If three doors are open and one door is closed, well, we must ask the people to decide which of the three doors they can enter. We cannot insist and say, "The people must not be allowed to choose," because the fourth door that we want is closed and it is not in our hands to open the bolt. If the Barisan Sosialis say they can open the bolt, we are happy. But since the bolt is on the other side, and we cannot open the door, and there are three floors by which entry can be made into Malaysia, and the common people want to know whether Malaysia is beneficial or not, the real debate should be, will Malaysia be beneficial to the common people of Singapore or not?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin is an honest man. That is why I rise to answer him. He says the door that is being offered by this amendment is closed. This amendment speaks of genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State and with its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day. I ask the Member for Tanglin, what does he understand by the proposal which he has supported, proposal No. (b) in the motion, Sir: '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.'? What does he ever understand by that phrase? Indeed, Sir, if the Member would like to rise, I shall be happy to sit down.

Order. We are not in Committee. I think the Member must make his speech.

I understood that he was seeking to rise on a matter of clarification, but I shall proceed. I ask him to notice that they are offering us a so-called proposal of complete and unconditional merger. That is proposal (b). I take it the Member for Tanglin, having accepted it, says that that door is open. Maybe it was a long time ago, and memory is short in this House, but it was referred to last November and I refer to it again today. These are the words of the Federation Prime Minister spoken on 16th October, 1961. If the Member for Tanglin will bear with me, I will quote it from page 9 of the Straits Times of the next day: `One thing is certain, and that is we cannot take Singapore with us in complete merger without a great deal of unhappiness and trouble, and so we must find a middle course.' So, Sir, talking about the Federation bolting the door, if he says they have bolted the door to our proposal, what about proposal (b)? Here are the words used by the Federation Prime Minister: `We cannot take Singapore with us in a complete merger.' Yet they pretend that that door is open, and our beloved Prime Minister, illustrious and learned, on the 12th of June in a radio broadcast which went over Radio P.A.P. on the 14th said: `If the people reject the White Paper proposals, they just vote for complete merger. That is a rejection of the White Paper proposals and we will get them complete merger.' So where is the logic of this? The Prime Minister of the Federation on the 16th of October in his own Parliament told his people and their representative: `We cannot take Singapore with us in complete merger.' Our Prime Minister told us on the 12th of June, "You want complete merger? We will get it for you." And he puts it in proposal (b). We have now learned that it is almost physically impossible for the P.A.P. to be honest. Everything they do is done with a corkscrew and so we anticipate dishonesty from them. But I ask the Member for Tanglin, whose profession has taught him logic and whose repute for integrity has never been challenged, political novice though he may be, I ask how he squares the suggestion that proposal (b) is open but our proposal is not? Proposal (b) is an open door, but the proposal we urge is not an open door. How does he make that distinction, Sir? The amendment before you is a matter that has coalesced and codified the stand of the Opposition from the very commencement. It was the one that was debated at length and was finally defeated on December the 6th, with the Member for Tanglin supporting. At that time, there was no question of "We would like to get it for you, but it was a closed door." There were other excuses. He says, and not wrongly, if you ask for something but the seller will not sell it at that price? I agree with him, and the answer is patience. If you cannot get it today, you may get it next week. You may get it next month. It is a matter of patience. If you cannot get what you want today, does it mean you have to destroy the opportunity for what you really seek? Sir, there is a little couplet that says, "For sake of silver spent today, why pledge tomorrow's gold?" Singapore and the people of Singapore have waited a very long time for freedom and for integration, and they have shown an immense capacity for patience. Why, I ask the Member for Tanglin, does he consider that a year or two is so vital that we must destroy the reality in chasing the shadow? The Member for Tanglin knows full well that in the context of our people, citizenship is the sheet-anchor of their security. If we cannot give them that common citizenship, they will not have a sense of security or belonging which alone can make possible a happy and united nation. I am very unhappy to note, Sir, that the S.P.A. has seen fit to start on an inauspicious note in rejecting a proposal which at least 17 Members of this House urged and went on record in support of on the 6th of December. Whether it is closed or whether it is open, is the Member for Tanglin seriously telling me that he knows for certain that the Federation Government would be prepared to accept proposal (c) which they have introduced through the Member for Cairnhill, "on terms no less favourable than any of the Borneo territories"? Does he really say that that door is open? If so, we would like to know why. Has it ever been negotiated? He knows the answer truthfully - No. Has (b) ever been negotiated? No, Sir, It has not been negotiated. Nor has (b) been negotiated. I say that if he wants, and I am not suggesting, as has the Member from Cairnhill, to put all possible alternatives before the people, well, let us at least put this one which has the support of one-third of the total number of Members in this House. It will not exhaust all possibilities of merger, but it is a fair and an honest one. And if the P.A.P., with their corkscrew mentality, seek to suggest that it is dishonest, because according to the Prime Minister you are offering a dish that is not on the menu, let me rub it in again, Sir, they are offering proposal (b) allegedly because the Opposition wants it and in the terms of the Federation Prime Minister - I repeat it: `One thing is certain, and that is we cannot take Singapore with us in complete merger without a great deal of unhappiness and trouble, and so we must find a middle course.' So, if this is a fraud, what about his proposal (b)? Is it a fraud, that we all know it is, the allegedly honest alternative? Mr Speaker, the amendment before you is in the spirit of the Reid Report, and if you will remember I read the paragraph which spoke of those having citizenship retaining those rights in a common citizenship. That is one of the constitutional documents. On Monday, Sir, at page 21 [Vol. 19, No. 1, col. 31], the Prime Minister asked if we could show him any precedent or analogy for automatic citizenship: 'Sir, if the constitutional documents contain either, by precedent or by analogy, provisions to support such a claim...'. Have you got that Sir?

On page 21?

It is about a quarter from the bottom, "Sir, if the constitutional documents." Now, Sir, I say by analogy and by precedent, we have the Reid Commission Report and we have Article 28 of the Constitution giving State nationals immediate citizenship on entry into the Federation. The Deputy Prime Minister says that there is no possibility under the Constitution of automatic citizenship. Again, Mr Speaker, he seeks to flounder in technicalities. Under Article 22, Mr Speaker, the Federation Parliament can in anticipation pass an Act to say that from the moment the instruments of transfer of sovereignty over Singapore are executed and exchanged, all citizens of Singapore shall be citizens of the Federation. That would be automatic. The Deputy Prime Minister is wrong in saying that it is impossible to provide for automatic citizenship. In fact, Article 22 requires the Federation Parliament to direct its mind to the issue and to make provision not only in respect of those who are citizens but also in respect of those who seek relationship with the territory. So, Mr Speaker, when he tells us that it is contrary to constitutional provisions and that it is a deceit and fraud upon the people, he just does not know what he is talking about. The Deputy Prime Minister is not the only one who does not know what he is talking about. There is, Sir, in this House a Gentlemen called the Parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Education.

Order. I do not think it is right for the hon. Member to address a Member or refer to a Member in such terms, which can be taken to be derogatory. The hon. Member should just say "the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education".

Well, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education is supposed to be bilingual. It seems that he speaks both English and, Mandarin, but I would inquire, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether he understands either language. I refer you to page 60 [Vol. 19, No. 1, col. 91], of the 9th of July. You will find, Sir, that I pointed out to the Deputy Speaker: `On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the light of what I understand will be the fourth alternative which is what I seek, if we cannot have one question, I shall not be moving my amendment of which notice has been given.' Now, it must be that obvious, because it was translated into Mandarin too, but at page 80 [col. 121], the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said: 'Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, about the second amendment I am not prepared to touch on it at the moment because I would like to see what grand arguments the Member for Anson will be advancing.' Sir, I do not know into what particular dialect he would wish translations of what I say in order to understand. If you will turn over the page, Mr Speaker, the whole of the second paragraph [col. 122] reads: 'The second amendment proposed by them calls for the automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens. I hope that when the Member for Anson moves his amendment he will tell us whether he agrees that the education policy of Singapore should keep in line with the Rahman Talib education policy, and whether he is prepared to let autonomy in education and labour be handed over to the control of the Central Government. I would also like to ask him whether he is prepared to accept any measures put out by the Central Government, for instance, the 4 to 1 ratio of Malays to non-Malays in the civil service. You see, ...'

On a point of elucidation.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, if he cannot understand what I say either in English or in Mandarin, it is a waste of time to ---

Order. The hon. Member must not go off on a tack like that. There is a perfectly legitimate request on a point of elucidation, and all the Member for Anson must say is 'yea' or 'nay'; that is all. If he says 'nay', then the Member sits down.

In the light of the rebuke, I say 'yea'.

I believe there is a mistake in the transcript. I referred to the Member for Queenstown and not to the Member for Anson, because he was not the person who was going to move the amendment.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir; he makes a double mistake because the Notice sent out was in my name and the amendment was to amend paragraph (b). On the 9th we did not have any notice of amendment by the Member for Queenstown and it is no use trying to wash our eyes with dust.

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I said those words, I meant the amendment about automatic citizenship. That was the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson. At that time, Mr Speaker, you said the Member for Queenstown could only speak after moving his first amendment. I am referring to the present amendment, Sir.

But, of course, in point of fact, on the 9th of July, there was no second amendment to be moved by the Member for Thomson. [Interruption] Has the Member for Upper Serangoon completed his "risibility"? As I was saying, on the 9th of July, there had been no notice put in of the second amendment to be moved by the Member for Thomson. I think a notice came late last night, but, of course, there was an indication that an amendment of that nature was going to be moved. But whether the Member was mistranslated as saying "the Member for Anson", of course, we could always check from the tape*. *A check from the tape recorded in Mandarin gives "the Member for Queenstown."

I am much obliged, Sir. On Monday, there was a notice in my name of a proposed amendment to give automatic citizenship and to change the words to the "spirit of the constitutional documents". And here he asks the Member for Anson about his grand arguments when he moves that amendment. But, Sir, let us pass on from the Gentleman, who does not know what he is talking about and does not understand what he is hearing, to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, who speaks of honesty - a word that I say comes ill from his lips, as ill and as alien as the word "national" which he insists on mispronouncing in such foreign fashion - takes me to task for making a long speech and not moving my amendment. Mr Speaker, I will explain very simply. There is a guillotine. My amendment is in fact incorporated in the amendment which is now before the House. In essence, it is not my purpose to seek to filibuster and take up the time of the House on unnecessary amendments. This is one - this fourth one - which 17 of us have agreed to and still agree to, Sir. Mr Speaker, if you will remember, on the 9th of July - I might draw your attention to the exact page - at page 25 [col. 35] the Prime Minister said, the 5th line of the transcript: 'By reason and logic we are entitled to as much as what was afforded to the 11 States. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that it is the duty of the Government to see that we are treated as favourably as any of the other States.' And if you will turn over the page, Sir, he repeats himself in the last paragraph [col. 38]: 'The first principle of any federation is that all States are dealt with equally and that the norm, or rather, the equivalent [I ask you to note the word 'equivalent'] of what was given to the 11 States of the Federation should also be available to any new member if the new member desires it.' Sir, the equivalent of giving the State of Johore citizenship for its nationals is giving the State of Singapore citizenship for its nationals. A subject of the Ruler in Johore, as a subject of the Ruler in Kedah, as a subject of the Ruler in Selangor, is in an analogous position to the citizen of the State of Singapore who is the subject of Her Majesty represented by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. They were given automatic citizenship on the formation of the Federation. The Prime Minister talks about his duty to see that our people get equivalent treatment and equal justice. That is all this amendment seeks. I am indeed unhappy to note, Sir, that a perfectly legitimate proposition which a third of this House seek to put to the people is being resisted not by the Government, whom we can expect to resist anything decent, but by the Front Opposition Bench - the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. We have never suggested that the White Paper proposals should not be put to the people. In fact, we urge that they should be honestly put. That is their stand and we are a hundred per cent with them that it should fairly and squarely be put to the people. Not with the word 'merger' that the Prime Minister seeks to tag on, but frankly as proposals for a closer relationship. We have never, never, never had a shadow of doubt that we would wholeheartedly support any attempt, every attempt to put those proposals honestly to the people. Why did the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. object to another proposal which, in their eyes, is not equally worthy, but which, in our eyes, is much more worthy and should be put to the people of Singapore? Why is that? In the context of their rejection of our amendment on the 6th December, 1961, Sir, they said that it was put up for political purposes and they would support the Government. Very well, they did it. But I say, the same reasons no longer prevail. Here the Prime Minister (and their own leader) has repeatedly said that all reasonable and possible alternatives will be put to the people. We are not asking for all possible alternatives; we are asking for one alternative - an honest alternative, a simple alternative. Sir, I do not know why it is constantly sought of me to restate my stand, but let me explain to you what I understand by that alternative. Sir, there is no misunderstanding. It means education and labour will be under Central Governmental control. There can be no question about that, because, to my mind, in our efforts to build a united nation, it is healthier that there should be a uniform policy. Whether we are agreeable to it or not in its implementation or its outline, will be a matter for constitutional effort to amend and alter - not only for us but for all. But I say that what I understand by a complete and genuine merger is that we will, in fact, seek no special consideration because of our wealth, seek no special consideration because of our unique economic and military value, but that we will seek merely, in all humility and in all sincerity, equality with the other States. Our wealth will be, at the disposal of all. Let us not forget that our per capita income is believed to be four times that of the Federation of Malaya. Singapore is a wonderful prize, Sir, and we are seeking for it nothing but what is basically right. We are asking for no premiums. We are asking for no special consideration. The P.A.P. want to go shouting that they want education and labour. Let us put the alternatives then bluntly to the people, Sir. That is fair enough. Would you rather have education and labour and no citizenship? Or would you rather have citizenship, common liabilities and common responsibilities? That is fair enough. Sir. And I will be glad to take the P.A.P. on that basis and to see the referendum clearly fought along those lines as to whether the people of Singapore would be prepared to accept loyally to be on a completely equal basis with the other States in the Federation - education, labour, finance - the lot in the hands of the Central Government as with every other State; or whether we seek the special privileges which the P.A.P. say we seek - as the P.A.P. make as a donkey's carrot - in order to excuse the sell-out of the basic issue of citizenship. 6.19 p.m. Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, just now we have heard the Member for Anson attempting to "tickle" U.M.N.O. in debating the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson in connection with the alternatives put to the people of Singapore on the question of merger. I, on behalf of U.M.N.O., say unequivocally and sincerely that we do not wish to indulge in twists and turns and we loathe any, one who indulges in such tactics and who tries to mislead or do anything of that sort. Our stand, Mr Speaker, does not mean that it is based on the wishes of the people but after having given due and thorough consideration to the problem whether it will be beneficial to all strata of society. Therefore, we are prepared to put aside our party ideologies. We do not retreat from our stand. On behalf of U.M.N.O., I say we will not retreat from the proposals as embodied in Command Paper 33 of 1961.

May I remind the hon. Member that we are now on an amendment, and I think he must address his mind to the amendment. What he is saying will be very relevant when we come back to the original Question. Then, as he has not himself spoken on it, he can do so. Now, we must dispose of this amendment first. Inche Ahmad Jabri (In Malay): I respect your ruling, Mr Speaker, but what I intend to convey is that I reject the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson. So it is necessary for me to state my Party's stand. This is a matter which we have thoroughly discussed and considered-the importance of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, and Malaysia. Any proposal which goes beyond the confines of Command Paper 33 is a pretext or is a manoeuvre to frustrate and destroy all successes which we have been able to achieve to date, or by which we have been able to achieve closer relationship between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The amendment moved by the Member for Thomson is not a new amendment. Indeed, this amendment has, in fact, been debated in the past. Therefore, I say it is not an amendment with good intentions, as we had hoped.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, if you will allow me, I would like to dispose of one or two points raised by the Member for Anson in connection with the speech made by my colleague, the Member for Tanglin. He posed the question, "how could the Member for Tanglin, in all honesty, have supported the second proposition put forward by the Government, the second proposition being a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the 11 other states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya." He also asked the Member for Tanglin what exactly he understood by the second proposition before he, the Member for Tanglin, agreed that it was a fair proposition which could be allowed to go forward to the electorate. In furtherance of the first point that he made against the Member for Tanglin, he inquired as to how the Member for Tanglin could think that it is a workable proposition when the Hon. the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya himself had said that it was an unworkable proposition. Now, to substantiate that, he quoted the Prime Minister of the Federation as having said this - I hope I am not misquoting him - this is a note which I made of his statement: `We cannot take Singapore in a complete merger. There will be a lot of unhappiness.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the Tunku meant by it when he said it, but I can tell the House what I understood by the Tunku's statement. I understood the Tunku to mean this, that so far as proposition (b), taking in Singapore as the twelfth State is concerned, from the point of view of the Tunku, and from the point of view of the Federation, there would be no unhappiness. The unhappiness would stem from Singapore. That is what I understood the Tunku to mean when he said, "We cannot take Singapore in a complete merger. There will be a lot of unhappiness." Now, the Member for Anson is of the view that the Hon. the Prime Minister of the Federation meant that if he took Singapore in as the twelfth State, there would be unhappiness for the Federation. I certainly did not understand him to mean that. And we all know, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson knows, the Member for Queenstown knows, the Member for Thomson knows ---

On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, the first part of that is at page 8. This is the Prime Minister to his Parliament: 'Absolute merger, for instance, would cause some degree of uneasiness in the minds of the people of both territories.' And then he continued in that vein to show how the people of the Federation would be rather unhappy: 'but one thing is certain, and that is we cannot take Singapore with us in a complete merger without a great deal of unhappiness and trouble and so we must find a middle course.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see what I mean. Now, as I was saying, the Member for Anson knows it, the Member for Queenstown knows it, the Member for Thomson knows it, and we, Mr Speaker, Sir, all of us who are in politics and who have been in politics for some time know what the basic trouble is. We know it, Mr Speaker, Sir, and yet we do not mention what the basic trouble is in a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. I ask the Member for Thomson and I ask the Member for Anson this question, "How could it have been possible for the British to have separated Singapore from the Federation in the year 1946, if the people of the Federation of Malaya and if the people of Singapore had wanted to be together?" Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask those responsible Members to answer the question, "Could anybody have kept us apart; could the British have kept us apart if both of us had really wanted to be together?" They could not have. If Singapore had wanted it; if the Federation had wanted it, Mr Speaker, Sir, no power on earth could have stopped it. The reason for this separation was that the Federation did not want us and we did not want to go in then; and the reasons are patent to everybody who takes an intelligent and an honest interest, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, Sir, in these matters. The basic problem is the Chinese in Singapore overwhelming the Malays in the Federation. That is the basic trouble. We know it. The Barisan know it. The P.A.P. know it. U.M.N.O. know it. The Workers' Party too know it. The problem has been, how could we reconcile the fears of the Chinese, the legitimate interests of the Chinese, the fears of the Malays, the legitimate interests of the Malays in the Federation - how could these fears be reconciled and the two peoples be welded together into a national entity in a national unit? That was always the problem. Because there was no solution to the problem then, the separation came. That was the basic problem. Therefore, when the Tunku made that speech in the Federal Parliament, that is what I understood him to mean. The Member for Anson must know something of this problem because he was the first Chief Minister of Singapore. He must have discussed it with the Tunku himself, who was then the Chief Minister and later the Prime Minister. The Member for Anson must have known what were the problems that kept the two territories apart and, having understood the difficulties of the Federation Prime Minister, he, then as Chief Minister, did nothing more about it. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Anson said, he did say this, "citizenship is the sheet-anchor" that is the basic difficulty in all these discussions. Now, so far as proposition (b) is concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a proposition, to my mind at least, which could be acceptable to the Federation, but it is a proposition which might not be acceptable to Singapore, because in a complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis if we go in as any other State, then we go in on citizenship proposals which are written into the Constitution already. Unless and until the Parliament of the Federation of Malaya over-rides those provisions in the Constitutional documents by an Ordinance, we cannot go in with all our citizens converted into Federal citizens. Therefore, proposition (b), to my mind, is a workable proposition. It might be a proposition which is not in our interest, but it is certainly a workable proposition from the point of view of the Federation of Malaya. On that basis, we accept, because if it is acceptable to the Federation and it is acceptable to the people of Singapore, of course, it can be worked. If there is mutuality in this matter, the proposition can be worked. Because of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, we agree to proposition (b). There is nothing sinister about it. It is a completely workable proposition. Now, if I might come back to the actual amendment moved by the Member for Thomson. It reads: '(d) genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day.' The important words, to my mind, in this amendment are "genuine merger", "automatically", "Federal Citizens". By genuine merger, I suppose we now mean anything that the P.A.P. does not put forward. The next problem I have to deal with is the question of "automatically". Now, when the Member for Thomson moved his motion on this, I was waiting to hear whether he would tell the House exactly what he meant by automatic citizenship. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, nothing was forthcoming from him nor from the Member for Queenstown as to exactly what they meant by saying automatically becoming Federal citizens". It must have a meaning, Mr Speaker, Sir, It is not a phrase which can be left standing in the air. It must be related to some constitutional documents. It must be related to some legal position in the Federation before we can truthfully say "automatically becoming Federal citizens". The Member for Thomson said this, By automatic citizenship we mean something to be negotiated." That is about all we got from him. So he himself has no clear idea of what he means by "automatically becoming Federal citizens". So when he says that it is something to be negotiated for, I take it he means something on which we have to reach an agreement with the Federation Government. Now, if the Member for Thomson had made this proposition two or three or four or five months ago, I could see point in the statement. At this late stage, I cannot, especially when there are documents now before the House from the Federation Prime Minister which quite clearly indicate that, so far as negotiating for all Singapore citizens becoming Federal citizens is concerned, that is not possible. Letters from the Federal Prime Minister, which have been laid before the House, clearly say that if you want all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens, automatically or in any other way, that it is quite impossible. That is the impression I got from reading the letter of the Federation Prime Minister. If the Member for Thomson or if the Member for Anson has other indications from the Prime Minister or any other Ministers in the Federation to the contrary, we have not heard of it. In this House, we have been told that the Member for Anson has been in communication with Tunku Abdul Rahman on this matter. Whether he has got any further than the Singapore Government, I do not know. But the point is that we are still being told by the Member for Thomson that we must negotiate with the Federation Government on the question of citizenship. Under the Constitution, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two ways by which citizenship can be acquired. One is automatic, as the Member for Thomson said, because it is by operation of law. By automatic, I understand it to mean, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it must be by operation of law. If it is through a process of negotiation, it cannot be automatic, because there is a third party intervening. If a third party intervenes, it cannot be automatic because it is subject to another will. So when the Member for Thomson puts down on the Order Paper the phrase "automatically becoming Federal citizens", I take it that he would be able to refer to some constitutional document whereby it would become possible, by operation of law, for all Singapore citizens on merger to become Federal citizens. The only clause which I can think of which might assist us on this matter is section 22, I think. Section 22 talks of acquisition of citizenship, citizenship by operation of law. If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had better read out the whole section, as I think it rather important. `Subject to Clause (2) , the following persons are citizens by operation of law, that is to say: (a) every person who, immediately before Merdeka Day, was a citizen of the Federation by virtue of any of the provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, whether by operation of law or otherwise; (b) every person born within the Federation on or after Merdeka Day; (c) every person born outside the Federation on or after Merdeka Day whose father is a citizen at the time of the birth and either was born ---'

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, It is not section 22 that he is reading from. I would like you to direct your mind to it, Sir.

I should have said section 14 (1). I think that would have been obvious. Did I say 22? I beg your pardon. It must have been obvious to the Member for Anson that I did mean section 14 (1).

Not obvious to the Chair.

I am so sorry I misled the House. If I may continue from (c), Mr Speaker '(c) every person born outside the Federation on or after Merdeka Day whose father is a citizen at the time of the birth and either was born within the Federation or is at the time of the birth in service under the Government of the Federation or of a State; (d) every person born outside the Federation on or after Merdeka Day whose father is a citizen at the time of the birth, if the birth is registered at a Malayan Consulate within one year of its occurrence, or within such longer period as the Federal Government may in any particular case allow.' Mr Speaker, Sir, so far as I am able to, this is the only provision which allows for citizenship by operation of law. Now, the other way in which a State that goes into the Federation can acquire citizenship is set out in section 22: 'If any new territory is admitted to the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, Parliament may by law determine what persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates from which such persons are to be citizens.' So, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two processes by which citizens of an incoming state could acquire Federal citizenship - one, by operation of law as cited by me previously, and the other, by an Act of Parliament moved in the Federal Parliament. Now, the first provision, Mr Speaker, Sir, section 14 (1), is a statutory provision and that acts on its own by operation of law, but section 22 is purely a political provision, it is in the Constitution. No doubt, it is possible constitutionally, but what will bring it on the Statute Books is a political attitude to the problem that is proposed before the Federal Parliament. Now, the question of a State being admitted to the Federation is a political one. The question of who from that stage should be admitted as Federal citizens is a political one. Now, if my arguments up till now are correct, I ask the Member for Anson, I ask the Member for Thomson whether or not the question of all Singapore citizens becoming Federal citizens is not a political one. If it is recognised that it is a political one, can they, in all fairness, say it when they know, when the Head of the Federal Government has told, them and told us, and told the House that it is not possible? In those circumstances, is it fair to the electorate to pose them a question which we all, as responsible citizens, know and which the Assembly knows, is not possible? It is not practical politics. I am not telling the Member for Anson or the Member for Thomson that it is not an ideal for which we should not strive. It is an ideal, Mr Speaker, Sir. We all have ideas of how integration should take place. As people entrusted with the destinies of Singapore, politics must not be looked at from the point of view of idealism alone; we must also look at it from a practical point of view. Is the proposition, which is formulated in the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, a practical proposition? When we want to know whether it is a practical proposition, we must view it against the background of the possibilities of its going through the Federal Parliament. If we are convinced, if we have been told that it is not possible, what then is the point of posing the proposition?

We can wait.

Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the Member for Anson has said it. Why has he not said it before in all his arguments?

I have said it all the time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has been merely supporting the Barisan Sosialis all the time. If the Barisan Sosialis had made the point, "We wish to remain as we are today," I would have respected them. Let them come out openly and say, "We want to remain a colony of Great Britain." Whether I agree with that point of view or not, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will respect it. There are numbers of people in Singapore who might agree with the Barisan Sosialis if they choose to remain a colony of Great Britain. At least that is an honest point of view. But to put to the electorate the question which they themselves know cannot and will not be accepted by the Federation is a fraud of the highest degree, to my mind. It is because of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, that my Party and I find ourselves unable to support the proposition which the Member for Thomson has suggested in his amendment. The Member for Anson said a vicious note was struck by the Singapore People's Alliance when they agreed to question (b) and would not agree to the proposed question (d). I do not think it is a vicious note, Mr Speaker, Sir, If I may turn the phrase on him, I think it is he and the Barisan Sosialis who are guilty of the vicious note, proposing something to an unsuspecting electorate which they themselves know cannot be acceptable. What is the point? Let us say the Assembly does accept the proposition and puts it to the electorate and everybody votes for it. Then what happens? The Federation says, "No, we will not have it." What is the point of it, Mr Speaker, Sir? Unless there is some ulterior motive behind all this. That is the only possible rational explanation I can think of - the ulterior motive. If there is no ulterior motive, it seems to be quite senseless putting a question which we know the Federation will not and cannot accept today. Maybe ten years hence, maybe years, but not today.

Maybe next month.

Maybe next month. But on the documents now available to us, it would appear, unless the Member for Anson can enlighten the House otherwise, that the proposed question (d) is not a workable proposition from the point of view of the Federation Government. It takes two to make an agreement. The stand of the Singapore People's Alliance is that Command Paper 33 is a first step. If in two months' time the Member for Anson can persuade the Federation Government to give us automatic citizenship, the second step and the final step will be taken. But when we know that the proposed fourth question is not a practical possibility, I think it would be a fraud on the electorate to pose it to them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the day before last when I mentioned the second amendment I was referring to the amendment to be moved by the Barisan Sosialis asking that Singapore citizens should be allowed to become Federal citizens automatically. At that time, we knew that the Barisan Sosialis had an intention to bring up this particular amendment. Subsequently this amendment was moved by the Member for Thomson. So when the Member for Anson said I was referring to him, according to the records of this Assembly, maybe there is a mistake in the script. Mr Speaker, Sir, the other day when I was dealing with this matter, I clearly pointed out that I hoped that the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis in moving this second amendment should make it clear whether they would include the following meaning in this amendment, that is to say, to allow the Central Government to control education and labour. On the face of it, this amendment is like a man asking some children, "Do you want to eat the meat of the heavenly swan?" I believe everybody likes to try the meat of the heavenly swan, but to be able to eat it, you must fulfil certain conditions. In this amendment, there is the suggestion that the meat of the heavenly swan is very palatable, but it does not say what conditions the people must comply with before they can eat it. That is to say, if you want to taste the meat of the heavenly swan, you must be prepared to suffer some stomach ache if it is necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, even up to the present date we have not been able to see any representatives of the Barisan Sosialis who are so frank as the Member for Anson, who says that he is prepared to accept this amendment on the one hand, and, on the other hand, he is prepared to hand over the education policy and the labour policy and other matters to the Central Government of the Federation of Malaya. When the Member for Thomson and the Member for Queenstown spoke on this amendment, I was listening to them very attentively to find out whether they had any grand ideas. Unfortunately, I was unable to find out from them whether they would be prepared to persuade the people of Singapore to hand over the policies of education and labour to the Central Government. We were unable to hear words clearly expressed to the effect that if the amendment is accepted, then the Singapore Government in future will not be able to make use of public funds to assist Chinese middle schools. What will be the future of Nanyang University? They would not dare to say a word about it. Again those who do not know English and Malay will not be able to become Members of the Assembly. Then admission to the civil service will be based on the four to one ratio, so that preference is given to Malays. They did not mention other matters which are now being practised in the Federation. They never mentioned these conditions before they said they wanted to give the people the meat of the swan. So I say this amendment is humbug. It is humbug intended to deceive the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody has either read in the newspapers or heard in this house that the Prime Minister of the Federation, in his reply to a letter from the Prime Minister of Singapore, has stated clearly that he cannot accept Singapore citizens becoming automatically Federation citizens. Therefore, I say the Barisan Sosialis are not sincere in having merger. That is why they have purposely brought up this amendment in order to close the door to merger. The P.A.P. Government is a Government that can face realities. We know that since the time the colonialists separated Singapore from Malaya, we in Singapore have had two Chief Ministers who have tried their very best to bring about a reunification between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. These two Chief Ministers include the present Member for Anson who himself has spoken to the Prime Minister of Malaya on this matter. Even the Member for Cairnhill, who was the second Chief Minister, has had talks about this matter; but all their efforts have proved futile. It is the policy of P.A.P. Government to treat Malaya as a nation. It will never treat Singapore as a nation. Therefore, when we came to power, we took a very realistic view. With this attitude we have tried to have talks with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. That is how the White Paper on merger has come about. According to the present circumstances and conditions prevailing in Singapore, this White Paper on merger will pave the way for a reunification of Singapore with the Federation. We do not say it is the ultimate objective. Our objective is to have a non-Communist, democratic, socialist Malaya through merger. The Member for Anson is a very clever lawyer, but I feel that, as a leader of the people, he should first have the prerequisite control of his own temper. A person who cannot control his own temper will not be able to hold the reins of Government of a country. Even when he represented the people of Singapore and went to the United Kingdom on a very important mission, he failed.

Order. The Member is quite entitled to say, in passing, that the Member for Anson has got a short temper. But I do not think he can go further than that. We are not interested in other times when he has lost his temper, if he has indeed lost his temper.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point which the Opposition, especially the Member for Queenstown, has brought up is that the representatives of the people must speak for the interest of the people. On the face of it, it appears to be very true and correct, but if you will look at it further and consider it carefully, then you will see the true position. For example, if in the Queenstown constituency there are some attap huts to be demolished in order to give way to houses, then the Member for Queenstown, as a representative of the people, must speak for the interest of the attap-hut dwellers. So if he says that every Member from every constituency must speak for the interest of its people, then the whole position will be very difficult.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Member for Queenstown is not in this House, may I clarify for him?

Order. All the Member can do is to rise on a point of elucidation - something which the Member has said which he has not quite understood. Dr Sheng.

If the Government wishes to demolish attap houses in any electoral division at all, the members of the Barisan Sosialis would certainly help the Government to do so. But if ---

Order. This is not a point of elucidation. This is making a speech. Mr Lee.

(In Mandarin): Similarly, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the rural areas, for example, the people in each constituency want to have more street lamps, more standpipes, more roads. If every Member from his respective constituency is really thinking of the interest of his own constituency Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): On a point of order, Sir, Is it relevant to the amendment?

If the Member for Havelock does not wait to see what the Parliamentary Secretary is leading up to, it is impossible for me to decide. I think he is leading up to the point.

(In Mandarin): Maybe the Member concerned was asleep. I was just saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Member for Queenstown said that representatives of the people should speak for the people. From his reasoning, it would appear that the representative of every constituency must speak for the people of his particular constituency. If we want to listen to the people of your own constituency, and everybody does so, then it will be difficult for the Government - supposing the people in every constituency want more street lamps, where is the money?

The Parliamentary Secretary has made his point. Let us come on to something different.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I can give you more examples to prove that his logic is not correct, because we, the P.A.P., is a Party which treats Malaya as a nation and we want to achieve independence, and to bring about a nation which is socialist and democratic. That is why the White Paper of the P.A.P has been brought up in the interest of the people in the two territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore and Malaya are just like a couple who have been divorced for over ten years. If this couple want to have a reunion, and if the man insists on his own conditions and the woman also on her side insists on her terms, then it will be quite impossible. If both sides can come to a compromise, it will be possible for them to have a reunion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said in this House that the Barisan Sosialis basically does not want to have merger. The Member for Thomson and his colleagues have said a great deal about merger between Singapore and Malaya. They say this merger is just like a marriage. They seem to me to want to take Malaya at a time when conditions are suitable for the victory of Communism. If they look at this matter from this point of view, then we can liken this view to the conditions existing between the mainland of China and Formosa. It would be a joke.

Order. Will the Member just try to come back to the amendment now?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, before I conclude my speech, I hope that those Barisan Sosialis Members who will speak later on will be able to tell us whether they are prepared to persuade the people of Singapore to hand over education and other matters to the Central Government of the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment move by the Member for Thomson as alternative (d) differs from alternative (b) in this one material particular - "with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day". From the beginning of "genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State", there is nothing that substantially differs from alternative (b). But where it differs is, whereas (b) is unconditional merger, (d) is conditional merger. It not only wants what it calls genuine merger - meaning complete merger - but it also wants an added advantage. Sir, I do not know how the Member for Anson is going to vote, because I have him on record at the forum of the 26th of June as being prepared to offer a thousand dollars to the National Union of Journalists if in fact the Government will put the alternative in this way, "Do you want the P.A.P. proposals," or "Do you want complete merger?"

Do read on.

"I say to you" - and I am reading on now - "that I am prepared, since the journalists are present, to donate a thousand dollars to the National Union of Journalists, if in fact the alternatives are put in that way and not in the alleged merger in accordance with Penang and Malacca." Sir, in response to this public request made on a public occasion, we studiously left out the words "Penang and Malacca" which, by now, have terrified the Member for Queenstown out of his wits, have brought public disapprobation upon him from his united front colleagues, the Member for Anson ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do rise on a point of order. I have been quoted here directly and I would like you to see the question, Sir, I have got it too: 'genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day. If that alternative which we ask for is posed to the people, I am prepared to apologise publicly and to pay a thousand dollars to the National Union of Journalists.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Radio Singapore transcript. He is reading it from the Straits Times, but this is on the tape, this is on the Radio Singapore transcript, and if there is any doubt, I can arrange for it tomorrow afternoon in the Library. Sir, I think the resonance of the Member for Anson's voice will bear me out: "Do you want the P.A.P. proposals," or "Do you want complete merger?" That is the question. That is what he said in Hansard. He said, and I quoted him as saying so, Mr Speaker, Sir: `If you put these two questions: do you want merger complete or P.A.P. merger? - 90 per cent will vote for merger complete.' All right. This is (b) - merger complete, unconditional - in his own words. How does he reconcile the condition stipulated by the Member for Thomson, a condition which he knows from his own interview with the Tunku - he has had an exchange of letters too with the Tunku - that it is not acceptable? Sir, I say it is dishonest to put an alternative which in fact is not there. It is like putting it on the menu when you have not got the stuff in the kitchen.

What about (b)?

Ah, (b), there are eleven examples. I say to the Member for Anson that we will fight for (b) and get the people (b). We will fight for them to get the Borneo terms, if that is what they want.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Prime Minister permit a matter of elucidation? The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

He says he will fight for (b) and get it. The Prime Minister of the Federation to his Parliament on the 16th of October: 'The opinions of politicians and leaders of Singapore were expressed openly. Some were in favour of full merger which would bring Singapore into the fold of the Federation as a unit of the Federation like Penang or Malacca.' I want to read the whole, Sir, if you will permit me - it is only one paragraph - so that there can be no suggestion that I am slanting it: '...like Penang and Malacca. Some expressed the view that a complete merger with the Federation would not be in keeping with the situation...'.

Order. The Member must remember that this is being translated.

I am so sorry, Sir. 'The opinions of the politicians and leaders of Singapore were expressed openly. Some were in favour of a full merger which would bring Singapore into the fold of the Federation as a unit of the Federation like Penang or Malacca. Some expressed the view that a complete merger with the Federation would not be in keeping with the situation and political progress [I am thinking of Singapore] and some others felt there should be a form of loose federation with the Federation.... Sir, one thing is certain, and that is we cannot take Singapore with us in a "complete merger" - that is the phrase in proposal (b) - without a great deal of unhappiness and trouble. So we must find the middle course.'

Quite right, Sir. - "a great deal of unhappiness and trouble in Singapore". But if that is what the people want, we will get it for them.

And not in the Federation.

Sir, with the help of the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson, we have convinced everybody in Kuala Lumpur. The Tunku and his colleagues are slowly convinced that perhaps if that is what they want and they genuinely work for it and ask for it and they prove sincere in their representations to the people in getting them to vote for a complete merger on absolute equality with any of the eleven States, then obviously there will not be unhappiness and trouble and it will be brought about. I say that regardless of what those statements say, if any political Party here openly canvasses for complete merger as a State in the Federation, as a twelfth State, or whatever you like to number Singapore as, on the same terms as any of the eleven States, we `shall get it for them. But I cannot promise to get more for them. That is what this proposition (b) asks for. It is as simple as that. The Member for Anson is in an awkward position.

Not me.

He said with great eloquence on the 23rd of November - merger complete and unconditional. He put in that abstract adjective, what the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Hong Lim did not quite sufficiently express themselves. They said Penang, Malacca, complete merger and so on, but he added those words - important words they were - "complete and unconditional". And this condition (b) is not possible of achievement. It is something that has never been given to any of the eleven States in the Federation. It is something which no Government in the Federation, with the electorate of the Federation as it is, can possibly concede.

It was given to the other nine States.

All right, Sir, if that is what the Member for Anson contends, then I say vote for (b). That was given to the nine States.

And you just twist it.

No, no, it is not for me to twist it, Sir, There are nine state nationality laws. What those laws are, the Member for Anson knows well. Not only must a person be born there, his father must have been born there. He knows that and the Member for Hong Lim knows that. He talks about his family being in Batu Pahat in the Federation. The Member for Queenstown comes from Kuala Lumpur. He knows that. He was a national of Selangor and a subject of the Sultan. He came down to Singapore to become a Singapore citizen - the easy way. I cannot promise to get something which is not on the cards. But I say, if the Member for Anson seriously believes that the nationality laws of the nine Sultanates give automatic citizenship, then let him canvass, and let his fate be decided, not by me, but by a fair tribunal ---

Who?

Of Judges.

Who?

Judges.

Order. The Member for Anson is getting much too excited. If there is any elucidation, I am sure the Prime Minister will sit down and the Member can elucidate. Mr David Marshall leaves the Chamber [Interruption].

Order.

Sir, this is the second occasion in my experience in this Chamber that the Member for Anson finds it difficult to restrain himself and has to leave the chamber. I hope that he will leave at least a wiser man in that he left just in time before, in the heat of the moment, he took me up on my challenge that he should canvass. Because if he accepts the nine state nationality laws, he knows he will come a cropper. Sir, what is the purpose of this amendment? The Member for Thomson says that merger is inevitable. It is a long time since he said that. He said that once when he was a Member of the P.A.P. and he stopped saying it when merger came near. But now when dawn is approaching and his manipulators understand that it is not possible to avoid it, when they are already publicly saying now in their recent speeches - the one in Pulau Saigon last Sunday - chan shih ter chou cher, a temporary setback for progressive forces. That is what they are saying. Nobody in his right mind believes that they really want this. What they want is no merger until, of course, there is a Communist government in the Federation. Then all is over. That is what they want. They do not like the word "Communist". They like the words "progressive forces". Sir, that is not possible. History does not wait for the Communists to fulfil the destiny of Malaysia. If the Communists refuse to go in with history, then history will take place against their will. The amendment that has been moved is dishonest in many respects. First, having exchanged letters with the Tunku - they said the Tunku thanked them, Sir, "thank you for your kind regards." The Tunku was so taken by surprise that these people had kind thoughts for him that he thought fit to thank them for their salutation. Sir, what do they mean? If it is only they who were left to negotiate, then they would put the heat on. That is what they meant. How would they put the heat on? That is something they have not answered. Vaguely, they say, "Ah well, if only we were there, something would happen." And I tell them what would happen. First, if we offer (d), if we agree to (d), which is something bogus, something which we know is unobtainable, then they will campaign for it on the basis, that it is unobtainable. Then they say, "Well, there you are. Since it cannot be got, it is off." But let us assume, for one moment, it is obtainable. Then there is another condition, Sir, another condition which the Member for Queenstown in the radio forum on the 26th reminded us of. This is on page 5 of the radio transcript. "Second condition, if that is accepted." Then be said, "proportional representation in the Federation Parliament which will raise us up", according to them, "from 15 to 25, maybe even 30." That will make it difficult for the Tunku to say "yes" or anybody to say "yes". But in case the Tunku says "yes" to that too, the Member for Queenstown has got another condition - provided it occurs immediately and is followed by a Pan-Malayan general election and the Tunku dissolves his Government. Then there is no government to checkmate them. A general election in Kuala Lumpur; a general election in Singapore - a general melee; anything can happen. That is what it is all about.

You are frightened of an election!

We are not frightened of an election. It will take place by and by. Let the Member for Nee Soon not doubt that. I only hope he will be there to take part in it. Sir, the price really that the Government has to pay for all this - we could easily opt out if we were irresponsible; if we wanted to; welsh on our responsibilities. There is a simple way out. We throw our cards in. We are not hanging on. There is no benefit in this. We are fighting for a cause. It is only worth while if we achieve our cause, and that cause is the reunification of the two territories and the maintenance of racial harmony. If we allowed mad fellows to go round playing a gambit in amendment (b), it would end up in an impasse that would lead to hostility and antipathy between Singapore and the Federation, which means really a Malay majority in the Federation and a Chinese majority in Singapore, which would eventually end in a cleavage of the whole of the population of Singapore, Malaya and the Borneo territories, between the Malays and the Chinese, that is what it means. An hon. Member: That is what they want!

I will say it is not our business to help them to do that. Insofar as we can, it is our business to bring about this racial harmony. That is why we are not advocating complete merger. The Member for Thomson says we are pandering to chauvinistic sentiments by talking of education and labour. Sir, knowing them well and knowing the local situation intimately, we thought it prudent to try and bridge the widening gulf of 17 years of separation by taking the reunification in stages. The ideal is complete and absolute merger - nobody denies that. But I say anybody who tries to bring education and labour into line with the Federation's policy on these two subjects at this moment knows - if he does not know it, then he is not fit to be in this Chamber - and if he knows and says that he wants to bring it about, then I say he is up to mischief. Even with education a reserved subject, we saw an attempt to disrupt all the Chinese schools last December. Then, at the impetuous request of the Member for Anson - from time to time he has this irresistible impulse, and I am glad he has betaken himself off from this Chamber, otherwise he might land the Barisan Sosialis in more trouble by asking more things which are no good for them - he asked for that Commission of Inquiry, and we accepted it. He put the Member for Queenstown in a tough and awkward position because the Member for Queenstown had to stand up and say he supported the Commission for Inquiry. But no sooner had the Commission of Inquiry got going then they attempted to stage a boycott of schools, strikes from classrooms to stop the Commission of Inquiry. That flopped too. And this with education as a reserved subject. Does anybody in his right mind believe that the Chinese school situation will be calm as it is today with two massive attempts by the Communists, already frustrated if education was going to go to the centre? What is the purpose of this. Sir? To play a dangerous game at all costs. Since they cannot get the people excited on behalf of the Communist cause, then they identify the Communist cause with the Chinese cause generally. It is as simple as that. Our business is not to allow the Chinese to be so silly, so simple as to be taken in by the Communists. Just as the Communists, we also put up a united front. It is our business to look after Chinese education and culture in order that it shall not become a political issue, in order that no primeval emotions are aroused or cause real trouble, trouble which, once started, none of the 13 Members opposite, nor the Members of the Central Committee of the Barisan Sosialis, nor the Committee underground that directs them, will be able to stop. And I say to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if anybody doubts what the outcome of such a situation would be if there were an impasse, then I say he has only to look back on the years immediately following the ending of Japanese rule when violent clashes took place in many parts of the Federation. They have only to look back to some of the incidents that took place only a few years ago both in Penang Island and Pangkor Island. Only fools and lunatics will embark on a racist policy regardless of the consequences of the people of Malaysia. 7.33 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just heard the speech by the Prime Minister. One point, Sir, which makes me quite happy is that he cannot deny the amendment moved by us that this amendment is the stand and has been the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on merger. [Interjection by the Prime Minister in Mandarin]

Order. I am afraid that interjection is lost to the Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister is rising on a point of elucidation. I am sure the Member will give way.

I want to point out to the Member for Upper Serangoon, as I do not want to be as unkind as his two allies in the united front - the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim - who took advantage at the radio forum to say how wrong his leader was, that I leave it to them to heap abuse on each other.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I continue my speech, let me answer the interjection made by the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister must have remembered that when I was on the side of the Government my speeches did not go to him for scrutiny. At that time, my views could be regarded as representative, views of the P.A.P. Sir, he has no reason to suspect me. But when I was on the side of the Barisan Sosialis, my views do not mean the views of the Barisan Sosialis.

(In Mandarin): Ching chi yi fah yen.

(In Mandarin): Sir, maybe I spoke in the double negative way that brought about the difficulty in translation. Sir, although all along we have been on a different political stand against the Singapore People's Alliance, but from the speeches of the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Tanglin, we feel that they are really more honest than the P.A.P. They are aware of our stand, unlike the P.A.P. who distort our political stand. The Prime Minister leaves the Chamber.

(In Mandarin): You feel fed up?

Order. I have said time and again that when a Member walks out of the Chamber with decorum, he must be treated with decorum.

(In Mandarin): At the time when the Member for Anson left his seat, the Prime Minister also passed a similar remark.

I chose my words very carefully. I said when a Member walks out of this Chamber with decorum, he should be treated with decorum.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin has pointed out to this House that according to him the amendment under (d) is the fourth door leading to reunification of Singapore with Malaya, but this point is fundamentally important. 7.40 p.m.

Although he has said that the other side of this door is bolted by the Federation and cannot be opened, he has not denied that this is a door which could lead to the reunification of the two territories. He takes our amendment together with the other three proposals as four doors leading to the reunification of the two territories. Now, this is quite correct. Our stand on merger is a door. With regard to the three other proposals, one is the P.A.P. White Paper on merger - this is a door through which the P.A.P. want to lead the people. We tell the people that this door does not lead to the reunification of the people of the two territories. The second door which the P.A.P. have distorted is proposed by the Barisan Sosialis; the P.A.P. purposely say that this is a trap in the hope that the people will be intimidated into not making this choice. Now, the third door is the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. This door is open, but it is quite dark inside and where it leads to nobody knows. We propose this amendment in order to enable the people to choose the right track to lead them towards the reunification of the two territories. Although, according to the Prime Minister and the Member for Cairnhill, the other side of this door is bolted by the Tunku, yet we have to let the people know. Just because this door is bolted by the Federation on the other side, we cannot make a wrong choice to lead the people, on the wrong track. The Member for Anson pointed out that this door was closed temporarily. We can wait and during our time of waiting, we can make a reasonable appeal to the Federation Government. The impossibility of a merger of the two territories does not necessarily mean that the people of the two territories will live as enemies. If the Federation Government feel that they cannot temporarily allow the people of Singapore to enter into the Federation, this does not follow that Singapore and the Federation cannot adopt any economic measure to benefit the people of the two territories. The economic barrier between the two territories is already known to the people. I need not elaborate on it here. I just want to point out that the people are compelled to accept the door selected by the P.A.P. This is the sole interest of the P.A.P. This can only be interpreted to mean that the P.A.P. are trying to save their own fate. Apart from that, I cannot find any other explanation or interpretation. The people of this country can wait, but the P.A.P. cannot wait, and we understand this point very clearly. The Member for Farrer Park quoted Article 22 of the Federal Constitution and he explained that this provision is a political provision. Of course, the merger of Singapore and the Federation is a political matter. We request that the citizens of Singapore should automatically become Federal citizens on Merger Day. This is also a political matter. Since this is a political matter, I see no reason why it should not be solved by political means. What we object to is that the P.A.P. are playing a game of party politics on this question of merger. But our contention that all Singapore citizens must become Federal citizens is one that transcends party politics. I think the Member for Farrer Park should understand this. Now the whole dispute centres on this point, that is, what questions, should be put on a ballot paper in the national referendum for the choice of the people? Our main idea is to find out the views of the majority of the Singapore citizens on merger. If we only say that the Federation Government may not accept, then this will be a matter on which we can consult them. It is not a matter on which we should consult the people of Singapore. We should not consider first what the political leaders in the Federation think but what the people of Singapore think of merger. The P.A.P. Government should understand that they were elected by the people of Singapore, and so, in the first place, they must consult them. We should, in the first place, get the positive opinion of the people of Singapore before we open negotiations with the Federation Government. I believe that the Federation Government is a realistic Government and if the Singapore Government can get the concerted support of the people for negotiations with the Federation Government, then I believe that the result of such negotiations will be much better than what has been obtained by a few P.A.P. leaders in their talks with the Federation Government. The Prime Minister in his speech just now has said that our amendment is a dishonest amendment. His only reason for saying so is that the Barisan stand on merger asks for proportionate representation in the Central Parliament and pan-Malayan general elections when the arrangements for merger have been completed. He says that the tabling of this amendment is dishonest because of these two conditions. I will say that his remark is itself dishonest. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance stressed time and again that our stand of true and complete merger would not be more advantageous to the people of Singapore. He said that the White Paper merger proposals would, on the other hand, give the people something more. This comparison is just like telling a girl that she had better get married because she would then be given a car, a house and a key to a safe deposit box. But we on this side of the House feel that the stand of the P.A.P. on merger, which promises so many things, will not be accepted by the people; that is to say, the girl may not be happy with all the comforts given to her because there is something lacking, and that is the legal status and security of her marriage. We propose that we must have equal rights with those of the Federal citizens. This is the point we want to stress and it is the same as insisting on security and the legal status of a marriage. I believe that many people on matrimonial matters must first consider whether such a union will he afforded any legal status. Now, the P.A.P. are asking the people not to have such a legal status. That means they are asking the people not to have citizenship rights. Instead they only ask the people to have cars, houses, labour, and education. That is all. Just to induce the people. We therefore see that our amendment, to the motion can be compared on similar lines with the P.A.P. White Paper on merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister said a few moments ago that if merger could not ensure that Singapore would be given autonomy in labour and education, then Singapore would have some misfortune. I want to ask: if there is complete merger between Singapore and the Federation and if there should be any misfortune arising out of autonomy in labour and education, who should shoulder the responsibility? We cannot agree with the arguments of the P.A.P. because today, apart from asking for merger, they have forgotten their political ideologies and convictions at the time when the Party was formed. In other words, they have forgotten their socialist principles. Otherwise, they should avoid accusing and scolding people who want to have equal rights in labour and education and other matters. Instead the P.A.P. should persuade the leaders of the Federation Government to change their policy. That should be the proper thing to be done by a truly socialist Party. The Minister for Finance said towards the end of his speech yesterday that we should pay attention to what he said, so that we would not regret in future. He told us that if we should continue to oppose the P.A.P. type of merger, then we would have misfortune falling on our heads. Here, I would like to tell him this - there is nothing for us to regret because we feel that the Greater Malaysia Plan is a plan of the colonialists. In opposing the colonial plot or intrigue, no matter what difficulties we Members of the Barisan Sosialis will come across in future, we today in the present struggle have gained more and more respect from the people, in the meantime, we have been very successful in exposing the colonial stooges, not like the P.A.P. Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much has been said about changing and somersaulting. Let us see, Sir, who is somersaulting. An hon. Member: S.P.A. Mrs Seow Peck Leng: We are now faced with an amendment moved by the Member for Thomson which asks for a fourth question. Then immediately after that, from the Order Paper, you see their own leader saying, again after many repetitions, that he wants one question. Let us have it, Sir. Do they want one question, or do they want four questions? It has been one question over the radio forum; it has been one question at the rallies; it has been one question in this Chamber; and now he wants four questions. Then back again, immediately after that, one question again. They cannot decide, Sir. Do they want one question or four questions? Who is somersaulting? The S.P.A. or the Barisan Sosialis? Then the Member for Cairnhill proposed question (c). It was said that he was dishonest, not sincere, somersaulting. I cannot remember what they said, Sir, but they said a lot of things about him. The Member for Queenstown himself said- or rather he meant it as an accusation - that the Member for Cairnhill has put in amendment (c) because it is acceptable to the Federation. Sir, is it their policy to put down questions which are not acceptable to the Federation? What do they get out of it? Is it not the right thing to do - to see that in a merger, which concerns two parties, both parties must accept the terms? And would it not be easier and more smooth sailing if both parties accept it? Yet it was meant as an accusation against the Member for Cairnhill - that he puts it there because he knows it is acceptable to the Federation, is it a crime to put in a question that we know is acceptable to the Federation? The Member for Upper Serangoon, I think, has said that it is the people of Singapore we must consult, and not the people in the Federation. And I think the Member for Queenstown has said that we represent the people of Singapore and why are we, the S.P.A., speaking on behalf of the Federation? We are not speaking on behalf of the Federation. What we propose to the people must be something practical and preferably if we know it is going to be accepted by the Federation. I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill knows whether it was to be accepted by the Federation or not, but all credit to him if he knew it was to be accepted when he put it down.

May I remind the hon. Member for Mountbatten that we are not debating the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill? We are debating the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson. So may I suggest that since the hon. Lady has not yet spoken on the original question, perhaps she could reserve all those arguments until we come to the original Question, as amended by the Member for Cairnhill, and after we have disposed of all the amendments. Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with due respect to you, I was not debating question (c). I was answering the charges made by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis against the Member for Cairnhill. However, Sir, I will pass on as you have ruled. I would say that amendment (d) is not only not practical but not necessary, because we have the 11 States of the Federation and Singapore and the three territories of Borneo involved in Malaysia. Questions (a), (b) and (c) cover all the aspects. (a) is what the Prime Minister of Singapore has agreed with the Prime Minister of the Federation; (b) is what the eleven States are getting; and (c) is what the other three territories are getting. Therefore, these three cover all the grounds of all the people concerned in Malaysia. Singapore is given the supreme and unique privilege of choosing any of them, that is, on the basis of the eleven states or on the basis of the three territories in Borneo. So by having (d), what new ground are we covering? Nothing that concerns all the people or the States that are involved in Malaysia. I say it is not practical, Sir, because we are asking not to be like everyone else that is involved. We are given the unique privilege, as I have said, to choose any one of them. We are not satisfied with that, but we say we must have much more than that. It is good if we can get it, Sir. But we must consider that although Tunku Abdul Rahman may be the Prime Minister, he too must consider the feelings of the people who had elected him. There would be pressures on him if he started treating Singapore as his blue-eyed adopted child. So he has to give consideration to both sides, Sir, our people as well as the practicability of it in Malaya. And talking about vagueness. They say (b) and (c) are vague. It is an unknown quantity and so on and so forth. Look at (d), Sir, Is it not vague? Genuine merger! I wonder whether anybody can give me a legal interpretation from any law book of the term "genuine merger". Sir, if you say you want a genuine ruby, I know what you mean. But if you say genuine red, what is genuine red? Crimson? Vermilion? Dark red? Light red? Dull red? Which do you consider a genuine red? When you say "genuine merger", I think you need to have an interpretation of what it means. It is more vague than the others. At least (b) says, like one of the States. And all you have to do is to take out the constitution of the eleven States or the contract of the eleven States and see what it means. (c) is a little vague. Yes, I admit, "no less favourable". But it is favourable to us, Sir. That vagueness is to our advantage. It is not less favourable. That means we can ask for more. If we think the terms of the three territories of Borneo are not sufficient, all right, we will ask for more. That vagueness is to our advantage. It is not to our disadvantage. So I do not see why we are quarrelling with that type of vagueness. As I said, the vagueness of genuine merger is more dangerous because we do not know what it means. Then they will say as the twelfth State. On an equal basis? An unequal basis? A better basis? A worse basis? How? Is it clear, Sir? Is there no vagueness in that as the twelfth State? How? Probably it is in their minds "on an equal basis". But as it is, I see it is more vague than (b) or (c). They are probably to our disadvantage. Sir, I said just now that it was not practical, apart from the pressures that I mentioned. The Member for Queenstown himself said this. In his own words, he said that the Tunku said it was possible to have automatic citizenship. But he himself said the Tunku said that he would not grant it. Now, Sir, why ask the people, "Do you want it?" and in the next breath tell them, "But you know you are not going to get it. The Tunku does not want it." As I have pointed out, it has to be accepted on both sides to be practical. Sir, the Member for Anson gave as an example of the dishonesty of the two questions (b) and (c). He says, if a girl says, "I want to marry Mr X. I do not want to marry Mr A. I do not want to marry Mr B. I do not want to marry Mr C. I want to marry Mr X." Is that dishonesty? he asked. No, Sir. Not if the girl says it. But if the Member for Anson, knowing that the man, Mr X, is already married or for some reason cannot marry the girl and goes to the girl and says, "Do not marry Mr A. Do not marry Mr B. Do not marry Mr C. Insist on Mr X. I will help you to get Mr X." I call it dishonesty. That is where the dishonesty comes in. When you know that Mr X is already married, or not able for some reason or other to marry the girl - it is not possible for her to marry him - and yet you tell her, "Do you want Mr X?" and insist, "Do not marry Mr A. Do not marry Mr C." If the girl herself, knowing Mr X is married, says, "Since I cannot marry Mr X, well, I prefer to be unmarried all my life." Not dishonesty. I agree. The answer to his question is no. It is not dishonesty. But the analogy is not quite correct. In this case we are telling the electorate, "Do not have the White Paper. Do not have Borneo. Do not have an equal basis with the eleven States. Ask for automatic citizenship." Knowing that it is not available, that is where I say it is dishonest, Sir. Probably, Sir, with all these long sittings, we are all getting quite tired and easily confused. With all this double talk of somersaulting - when they accuse us of double somersaulting, and when people who accuse them somersault themselves - I can quite understand the interpreters themselves are getting confused with double negatives. It is typical of the Barisan. They have confused us enough. Now they are using double negatives and confusing the interpreters too. Now, Sir, what would be the result if the people chose (d)? Let us say that the majority of the people voted for (d). What would be the result? No merger. Then they say, "Why not?" Why can we not wait? We can wait. The P.A.P. cannot wait because they are toppling. But we can wait. Probably they are right in one way. The P.A.P. is toppling and cannot wait and all that. But where I am concerned, I too can wait, Sir. But let us see whether the waiting is going to benefit us. Sir, if you are looking for a job as a general manager of a firm. You go there and the people say, "Well, you are new. I do not have so much confidence in you. Let us start you as an assistant manager." The firm says, "You want $500 or $600 pay. We will give you $400 or $450." You say, "No fear. Give me a general manager's job or none at all." And the firm say, "No vacancy. Prove your worth. We will give it to you when there is a vacancy, and when you have proved your worth." You say, "No, no, no. I will go jobless. I will wait. Let me be jobless. Unless I get $600 as a general manager, I will not work." I will not wait, Sir, I do not know, because opinions differ. I would rather take up the job as assistant manager, prove my worth, and then get promoted to general manager if I am worthy of it. An hon. Member: That is a matter of opinion. Mrs Seow Peck Leng: A matter of opinion, yes. But do not say that we are dishonest, because we say, "Do not wait." Well, probably they are rich, Sir, they can live without the $400 pay as assistant manager. But if I depend on my job, what else can I do, but to accept that? [Interruption]

Order. Mrs Seow Peck Leng: So, Sir, wait, yes, wait, if it benefits us. But to wait at a loss, I would rather say, "Do not wait." The Member for Anson also compared this case with a girl wanting to marry Mr X. She knows she cannot marry him for another three years or so - I do not remember the exact number of years. An hon. Member: Seven. Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Oh, seven, yes. Well, what you are doing is that you are advocating that the girl should be a mistress. Is it right that if she cannot marry Mr X until seven years more she must now be his mistress?

There is the Women's Charter. Mrs Seow Peck Leng: But mistress, can. Even in the Women's Charter, you can be a mistress. Anyway, Sir, this analogy is again wrong because a mistress is someone who is ostracized by society, looked down upon by the law of the land; it is not legal, it is also looked down upon morally. If Singapore goes through with the White Paper, is the rest of the world going to ostracise Singapore? Or are we going to lose our trade? If we go through the White Paper merger, if Singapore is going to be looked down upon and everybody in the rest of the world says, "Ha, you become a mistress now, we will not be friends with you; we will not have anything to do with you," are we going to lose our prestige? Are we going to lose our trade? So the comparison with the mistress is not quite fair. It would be more fair to compare it with my example of if you cannot be a manager today, well, be the assistant manager first. It would be more fair to compare it that way because both are working towards certain advantages; no doubt complete merger is like the general manager, bigger pay probably, better, but then we are accepting a lesser pay towards a bigger result. We are not accepting something that is ostracized or is legally and morally looked down upon. So, Sir, from that point of view, I do not think that Singapore can be termed to be a mistress of the Federation. Probably we are starting as an unimportant little brother trying to prove his worth to become one day a brother whom the elder brother will look up to with respect - as the S.P.A. said during the merger debate that this is the first step towards complete merger. The Barisan Sosialis say that automatic citizenship is possible and that the Tunku has said it is possible. Probably, Sir, I am not arguing that it is not possible, and the more we know that it is possible, the more we should work towards that objective. And how should we work towards it? The way that they are doing, Sir? Not even the way the P.A.P. have been behaving. And they must admit this, I am sure in their hearts of hearts - if they do not admit it now, they will admit it in their hearts of hearts - their past behaviour of having collaborated with the Communists. They themselves called them Communists. I do not know whether they are, but they now call them Communists. They collaborated with the Communist front people; they befriended them, shielded them, held them, came to power with their help and all that. That type of behaviour naturally calls for suspicion from the Federation, and the Federation at once says, "Beware, be careful; do not come too close, do not get too much involved." That is the natural reaction of anybody, and the present behaviour of the Barisan, with the P.A.P. shouting Communists at them, rightly or wrongly --- An hon. Member: Rightly. Mrs Seow Peck Leng: --- or justifiably or unjustifiably, raises suspicion and fear in the Federation. They are frightened to get too close. They are frightened to put themselves too much into it. Let us try first, they say, a little bit and see how it works out. Can we blame them? Instead of taking this and saying, "All right, you take this opportunity; you will eat your own words later on. We will prove our worth; we will show you what a good small brother we are; and we will prove to you and we will get automatic citizenship." If it is possible, as they say it is possible, and the Tunku has said it is possible, well then let us work towards it and not behave in the way they are behaving. The way that they are behaving, Sir, is driving more and more fear in the Federation. In the end, they will probably even say, "No White Paper; we do not want to have anything to do with you since there are so many Communists there; the Communists seem to be so strong there." I ask you, Sir, if you have a son whom you suspect is gambling and living a bad life and you have some property to leave him; what would make you decide whether you should leave him that property? By his trying to prove that he is not a gambler, that he lives a good life? Or by his fighting with you and in the fight actually showing you that he can be a hooligan? And your suspicion that he is mixed up with bad hats gets stronger and stronger every day. Is that the way he is going to convince you to leave your property to him? The way is to make the Federation respect you and to have more confidence in you. Let us do that, Sir, If we accept this White Paper and then we prove to the Federation how worthy we are of that trust. Even if the P.A.P. shout their lungs out - I shall be finishing, Sir, this is the last sentence - that the Barisan are Communists; but if the Barisan prove their worth to the Federation, I am sure, Sir, that the Federation people are not fools; they will see through if this is just a wolf cry. And I tell the Barisan - this is my last sentence and advice to them - "Prove your worth." 8.27 p.m. Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta) (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today we are debating the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson of the Barisan Sosialis. The bringing of this amendment can be interpreted as the attitude of a kid playing with sand. The Barisan Sosialis are not sincere at all. And just because of that attitude, they bring forward various contentions; today they bring forward this contention, tomorrow they bring forward the other contention ---

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

Debate resumed.

We are on the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson. At the end of the Prime Minister's motion as amended, to add `or (d) genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day'. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Madam Chan Choy Siong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days the Barisan Sosialis Members have been saying that we have distorted their stand. But what is the fact? Have we distorted their stand? Is it necessary for them to introduce this amendment today? It is very simple to answer this question. I believe many people in Singapore have received a copy of the manifesto given by the Barisan Sosialis as a gift to each of them. Now this has been their stand all along. I have here a copy of the manifesto of the Barisan Sosialis. I will quote paragraph 5: `Our stand on constitutional future The reunification of our country and our people - there are two alternatives before us - one is immediately to establish a full and complete merger with Singapore becoming one of the component states of the Federation like Penang and Malacca. The second alternative is to form a confederation with Singapore retaining full internal self-government, if possible, with the Borneo territories joining the confederation.' The motion by our Prime Minister includes the two questions as suggested by the Barisan Sosialis and as appearing in their manifesto. From this we can see whether we have distorted their stand, as they have accused us. This, I think, can be very clear to all the people of Singapore. The people of Singapore also know what is the true stand of the Barisan Sosialis on merger. And it is also because they have such a stand that is why at the radio forum on the question of merger, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, who was present then, gave his opinion. Our Minister for Finance was also present and he accepted their opinion. But when they found this was not what the people who are manipulating behind the Barisan Sosialis wanted, they immediately changed their stand by requesting for automatic conversion of citizenship. That is also what is contained in the amendment introduced by the Member for Thomson today. Mr Speaker, Sir, history progresses with time. The question of merger today is not a fact yet. But we all can see that the wishes of the people of Singapore, the Federation of Malaya and the Borneo territories for a united country will soon materialise. However, today we have certain people sitting opposite who are dreaming and who want to ask for the stars and things which cannot be realised to be their merger proposals. Their putting forward such a proposition shows what they are. But they cannot block merger from being realised. Members of the Opposition Parties and the Barisan Sosialis are struggling for survival. That is why, being in this predicament, they have introduced such an amendment as this one before this House. But I am afraid their last struggle may be too late, because the people have known for a very long time that the Barisan Sosialis are not sincere on the merger issue. Why do they appear to be so keen on trying to secure citizenship for the 600,000-odd citizens of Singapore? I think they are only trying to use it as a cover and as a red herring in order to divert the people's attention from their actual motive of frustrating merger. Today they say that merger is good, but the people have not accepted their word at its face value. They have made another great blunder. They keep on harping on the theory of independence for Singapore. They put forward this theory when in fact they are living in an ivory tower. Is it a realistic way out? I would say no. The road they have been advocating is not a realistic way out. It is a blind alley leading to death. With the brains they possess, they could now say that the P.A.P. have changed their stand, hoping that the P.A.P. will follow them into the blind alley. We have not done so. In the Anson by-election they tried to capsize the P.A.P. and split the P.A.P. As a result, 13 ---

Order. May I remind the hon. Member that we are on the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson? Perhaps she should come back to the amendment. Madam Chan Choy Siong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only intended to mention these facts to show that they had some relationship with the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson, and, as I have said just now, because they do not want to see the realisation of a united Malaya. They want to topple the P.A.P. in order to thwart the progress of merger. But the progress of events is not something that everybody can foresee. Reunification of the two territories perhaps might take quite a long time. History has gone beyond our expectations. Mr Speaker, the Member for Thomson has today introduced this motion. If they have confidence in merger and are sincere about it, why, when the White Paper on merger was introduced and debated in this Assembly, since that time and all this time have they been trying to block the realisation of merger? It is because they know that the White Paper of the P.A.P. on merger is the correct one in the eyes of the people. But to the minority in the Barisan Sosialis it may be detrimental to them. That is why they are all the time saying that it is a kind of sell-out plan and they have been arguing that this plan, when realised, will bring bankruptcy to the people of Singapore, and is only in the interest of a few Ministers. They say it is to save the P.A.P from bankruptcy. If it is so, then there will be many countries in the world where there is dictatorship, and they hope, if Singapore is still a colony, they may be in a better position. Even if merger is now realised, in the coming five years we will have to face the people again and be judged by them in regard to what we have done in the past. Mr Speaker, Sir, today the Barisan Sosialis and their fellow travellers, however hard they try to cover up their intentions, and however hard they try to wreck merger, cannot prevent merger from being realised. The Member for Upper Serangoon has said that if the propositions from Singapore are not acceptable to the Federation, then they could wait. But are we going to wait for a hundred years, a thousand years? Also during the time of waiting, what about the economy and the livelihood of the people in these two territories? How are they going to be resolved? But they say they can tell the people to wait - wait until one day when the Federation of Malaya has a government like theirs, then there can be merger. It is still not too late. But under the present circumstances, the Barisan Sosialis know, and the people of Singapore also are aware, that the objectives and wishes of the Barisan Sosialis are something that the people of Singapore cannot wait to see materialise. But why do the Barisan Sosialis not want to tell the people? They are waiting for a Communist government to appear to help them carry on the type of merger they want. If so, how can the people feel that theirs is a honest political Party? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon says that the arrangements by the P.A.P. and the Federation are as a result of the P.A.P.'s intrigues. He says he and members of his Party are not afraid of the consequences that will follow the materialisation of such arrangements, and that they will struggle against any such consequences. The Barisan Sosialis mouth theories, but when the time comes, they may retreat. I remember that at the time when Indonesia wanted to recover West Irian, the Member for Queenstown appealed excitedly in this House to the people to help Indonesia recover West Irian. They encouraged the people to die but they themselves hid in their shelters. In the same way, when they say that when Malaysia comes and it is not in their interests and is detrimental to them, they will struggle against it to the end. I have been associated with them for quite a long time and I know what they are. In 1957 we split with such adventurists. The P.A.P. had to split with such adventurists. At that time, when events were taking place they were still in the P.A.P. They had sworn they would see the Party through thick and thin. But when events came to pass, they were not to be found. The Member for Upper Serangoon also could not be found. He knew at that time what the objectives of the P.A.P. were. He also said the P.A.P. is a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Party. And if he were to hide in the Party he would not be in physical danger. So we can see what they are. But, however they may smear to the effect that merger and Malaysia are a sell-out, today the facts show that they will eventually materialise and cannot be blocked by any means.

Order. The hon. Lady should try and come back to the amendment. I think she has gone a little bit too far away this time. Perhaps she can come back to the amendment. Madam Chan Choy Siong (In Mandarin): We believe that such events will materialise and when they come they will bring prosperity and a more united nation for all the people in the five territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, lastly, I would like to tell the Barisan Sosialis and their fellow travellers that however hard they may argue over this amendment, trying to point out how good their stand is, they cannot run away from their original stand as indicated in their Declaration of Meeting of Convenors of the Barisan Sosialis. They have agitated many supporters and have even tried to convene a Joint Action Council to block our merger plan. Although they have been criticising the P.A.P.'s merger plan in unison, they are having different dreams though lying on the same bed. When the time comes, they will part company among themselves. That is why I say now and here that I oppose the amendment by the Member for Thomson. 10.05 p.m. Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, our colleague, the Member for Thomson, has moved this amendment which actually has been the Barisan Sosialis stand on merger and a basic contention of the Barisan Sosialis on merger as well, that is to say, our view on the reunification between Singapore and the Federation has all along been the same. If the Member for Delta wants me to make a reply, I will do so later on. So we can see this is our basic stand on merger. When the Government Benches were debating the National Referendum Bill, the Prime Minister said he would ask the people of Singapore what type of merger they preferred. Therefore, we believed that what had been said by the Government all along would be put into practice. We are especially of the opinion that the Government should include the stand of the Opposition on merger as a question to be put to the people for their choice. That is why the Member for Cairnhill himself has brought up his own idea of an alternative of the mode of merger, that is, whether we can join the Federation on terms no less favourable than those on which the Borneo territories enter the Federation of Malaya. Since the Government can accept the proposal of the Member for Cairnhill, we believe the Government has no reason whatsoever to reject the motion of the Barisan Sosialis. In other words, by accepting our amendment the Government can carry out its own promise, that is, to pose several questions for the decision of the people; and among these questions there is one of the mode and manner of the P.A.P. Government, namely, the White Paper; there is another - the so-called unconditional and complete merger, which is anti and hollow; the third one is the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill; and the fourth one can well be the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, our connection on merger, which is to have a true reunification between Singapore and the Federation, has been made because of the rights of the Singapore people, that is to say, that on merger Singapore citizens should automatically become Federal citizens. So, if the Government want to prove that they are democratic, they should take heed of the people's opinions. In the first place, they should keep their promise, that is to say, they must accept our motion so that the true stand of the Barisan Sosialis can be put as one of the alternatives in the referendum to the people for their consideration. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members of the P.A.P. Government have said in this House that the Barisan stand on merger is correct and is in keeping with the interests and wishes of the people of Singapore. But apart from admitting this publicly, they ask us whether we agree to the Federation policies on education and labour when Singapore citizens automatically become Federal citizens on Merger Day. We know that when there is true merger between Singapore and the Federation, it goes without saying that labour and education will be controlled by the Central Government, it does not mean, however, that if we obtain automatic citizenship rights, we will accept the present policies of the Federation Government on education and labour. Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that the questions they want to pose are very naive, that is to say, as a Federal citizen, it does not mean that he must always accept the policies on labour and education which are unsatisfactory to the people. Let me ask these naive people in the Government Party this. If a Federal citizen is dissatisfied with the policies of the Federal Government, what action can this particular citizen take to make a change in those policies? Mr Speaker. Sir, I would say that when a citizen is dissatisfied with the policies of the Government, the only way he can seek remedial action is through the democratic process, which is the one man one vote system under which the term of a government is limited by time. So if the policy of any government is unsatisfactory to the majority of the people, they can organise their own Party, or when they think fit they can join those political Parties with whose principles and policies they agree. Then they can pass a vote of no confidence in the Government. If they succeed in this, they can elect a new government which has the confidence of the people and then this government that has been newly elected can make the necessary changes in the policies which are unsatisfactory to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, we of the Barisan Sosialis feel that if there is to be any genuine merger between Singapore and the Federation, all the progressive and socialist Parties in these two territories must first be united, and according to the principles of the Barisan Sosialis, we must carry out social reforms in our country so that every member of our society will get a fair deal.

Order. The hon. Member has made his point. We do not want a debate on that aspect of it. Let us come back to the amendment. Mr Tee Kim Leng (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just trying to reply to the question raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education as to whether we are prepared to accept the Federation Government's policies on labour and education. I will say here that we are unhappy with the present policies of the Federation Government on labour and education. We are also unhappy with the present Government's policy on external affairs. So when the day comes when there is true merger between Singapore and the Federation, the socialist Parties must get together to make the necessary changes to the unsatisfactory policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the P.A.P. Government touch on the question of automatic conversion of citizenship, they always say that the Federation Government will not allow Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens automatically, because the citizenship laws in the Federation are more stringent than those in Singapore. The Prime Minister at a forum held in the University of Singapore also said that more than 300,000 non-local born citizens of Singapore easily obtained citizenship rights in 1957 by reason of the length of their residence in Singapore. That was why the Federation Government said that the 300,000-odd non-local born citizens were not worthy enough to become Federal citizens. Our Prime Minister says that if the 600,000-odd citizens of Singapore want to become Federal citizens automatically on merger day, then he says the Barisan Sosialis can get their friends in the Federation, namely, the Socialist Front, to move a motion in the Central Parliament asking the Federation Government to give citizenship rights to the 600,000-odd Singapore citizens. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leaders have said all this, which makes me very doubtful. It looks as though their argument boils down to this; that in 1959 they were elected by the Federal citizens in the Federation. But these are not the facts. The present Government of the P.A.P. was elected by the citizens of Singapore. How strange it is that on the side of the P.A.P. they should speak for the Federation Government! How strange it is that they have forgotten entirely about the interests of the citizens of Singapore! And they have the audacity to say that the citizens of Singapore are not qualified to become Federal citizens! Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that when the time comes the people over there will be thrown into the dustbin. There is another thing which is very strange. They say they are making sacrifices in the interests of the people of Singapore. They try to make their positions safe by saying they are working in the interests of the people of Singapore. Sir, a few moments ago the Member for Farrer Park made a speech about automatic conversion of citizenship. He made quotations from the Constitution of the Federation and he mentioned section 14.

Order. The Member must modulate his voice. It is coming through very loudly. Mr Tee Kim Leng (In Mandarin): He quoted sections 14 and 22. He said that according to section 22, the citizens of Singapore are qualified to become Federal citizens provided there have been political negotiations. It is a fact; it is true; we know that Singapore has been separated from Malaya for many years. When each has been carrying on its own, there will be different sets of laws, and the only way to make Singapore citizens Federation citizens is to have mutual negotiations between the Governments of the two territories concerned. So we can see from his argument that our amendment is very reasonable and correct. Mr Speaker, Sir, he also said that the question of true and genuine merger was entirely in the hands of the Federation Government. It was, he said, because the Federation Government did not want us to have a true and genuine merger with the Federation. Well, does it mean that when the Federation Government does not want to give us genuine merger, we must accept any type of merger other than the genuine type of merger? In my opinion, I will say that in the interests of the people of Singapore, we must try our best to safeguard such interests. Mr Speaker, the Member for Delta also said that on the 15th of September, 1961, we at our inaugural meeting made a declaration that we wanted the Penang and Malacca type of merger. That was what she said. I believe she has not paid sufficient attention to the declaration of the Barisan Sosialis. On the 28th of August, 1961, we in the Barisan Sosialis made public a policy statement entitled "Our stand on merger". I have made some quotations from this particular statement, but I do not wish to repeat them. So I will say that if the Government Benches are sincere, they should not distort the contention of the Barisan Sosialis. Instead they must pay closer attention to statements made by the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Delta also said that we are trying to promise people something better than the moon, but I will say she is not talking from facts. Here even the S.P.A. also agrees that the White Paper is not actually a true form of merger. Here we make our stand that we must have automatic conversion of citizenship. So I hope and believe that the Government will carry out its promises by accepting our stand on merger and posing it in the national referendum for the selection of the people.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I do not want to waste the time of the House, but under the present circumstances, when the P.A.P. is trying to sell out the people of Singapore, my conscience pricks me and I feel that I have to stand up and speak a few words. Sir, over the past few months if you had gone to coffee shops or street corners and not remained in your house you would have been able to hear the grievances of the people. They would have complained to you that when they elected the Lim Yew Hock Government, it sold Christmas Island. And now that they have elected the P.A.P. Government, it is trying to sell the people.

Order. I might remind the hon. Member that we are debating an amendment moved by the Member for Thomson, in which I cannot see anything about Christmas Island.

(In Mandarin): Since I have heard all the grievances of the people, I will try to convey their views here and put them across the Floor to Members on the Government side. Let me quote a speech made by the Minister for Finance which appeared in page 5 of the Nanyang Siang Pau. He remarked, "After merger under the White Paper, the citizens of Singapore, however, did not produce facts to substantiate the benefits and advantages of the citizens of Singapore. It is hoped that in this debate Members of the Barisan Sosialis will make a study of the speech and make a proper reply." The Minister for Finance said that according to the White Paper on merger, the citizens of Singapore will never become second-class citizens. But we feel that since he is a Doctor of Economics he should be able to grasp the theory of one plus one equals two. He said that Singapore citizens will never become second-class citizens. You will see that out of over 600,000 citizens there can only be 15 representatives in the Central Parliament. On the other hand, there are only over 200,000 electors in Malaya, yet they can have 104 representatives in Parliament. That is to say, in Malaya every 22,000 electors can elect one representative, whereas in Singapore every 41,000 electors can elect only one representative in Parliament. 10.36 p.m.

Under merger every year out of taxes Singapore will have to hand over $100 million to the Federation Government, and yet the Government cannot ---

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I notice that the interpreters are not able to interpret the Member's Mandarin.

I agree there is some difficulty in the interpretation. I do not know whether it is due to the Member speaking too fast or to the intonation of the Mandarin as delivered by the Member; I am not quite certain. But perhaps it would be better for the Member to speak a little slowly, so that the interpreters will be able to cope with him.

Hebrew Version of Mandarin!

(In Mandarin): All right, I will speak as slow as the Member for Delta. I was saying that not only can we not enjoy equality in citizenship, but the Government will collect taxes from the Singapore people and hand over $100 million every year to the Federation Government. If there is no equality in citizenship, then there will not be any good results in the political life of the people here. Citizenship is just like a truck. Citizenship can be regarded as a truck.

Point of order, Sir, I am afraid there is a breakdown in the sound system. I see that the Member for Moulmein has been continuously speaking and yet nothing has come through the interpretation system.

It is not a breakdown in the sound system. It is just that the Interpreters cannot keep up with the Member.

He is not speaking Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, [Pause] ---

Order. I see that the Member has been speaking for quite some time, and yet I cannot hear a single word from the Interpreters. May I know exactly what has been spoken? Mr Lin You Eng. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Chor Yeok Eng) (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. The Member for Moulmein has just been comparing us to elephants and dogs. Is this parliamentary?

I have already indicated that although the Member for Moulmein has been speaking, the Chair has not heard any translation at all. And as the Chair cannot understand Mandarin, he is not in a position to say whether the Member did use those words or not. I have not heard a single word translated from his speech, but I hope he has not used those words.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was comparing citizenship to a truck. If you want to level a mountain, you must make use of a truck. That is to say, that citizenship is like the P.A.P., a lousy government. When the time for the next general elections comes ---

Order. I have already indicated that other Members should not take advantage of the Member for Moulmein when he is speaking. Too many points of order are completely irrelevant and out of order. Members must give some time to the Member for Moulmein to express his point on the amendment. Mr Lin You Eng.

This is a point of order, Sir, I heard the Member say "huai tan", and I do not know whether it is in order for the Member to use that term.

I have already indicated that some words of the Member for Moulmein may not be heard by the Interpreters. But if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that the Member used an offensive term, he can rise and say that the Member did use some offensive words and I will ask the Member to withdraw those words.

(In Mandarin): If the people have equal citizenship rights, then if they are not satisfied with a government, they can exercise their citizenship right and wipe out that government. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Finance said just now that there is no such thing as second-class citizenship. But let me say this; although I do not wish to waste the time of the House - that in Singapore every 40,000 of the electorate can only elect one representative to the Central Parliament, whereas in Malaya every 20,000 can elect one representative. So if there is no second-class citizenship, then how can there be ---

Order. May I remind the hon. Member that all these arguments have already been put forward by the Member for Queenstown, and that he is merely repeating what his own colleagues have said in this House? Perhaps the Member for Moulmein could bring out some new arguments and not repeat what his own Chairman has said here.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, day in and day out the P.A.P. radio have boasted in their broadcasts that according to their White Paper merger proposals they would retain autonomy in the field of education and labour. They claim that this type of merger is the best we can get. But will the autonomy in education and labour exist forever ---

Order. We are debating the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson. We are not debating the White Paper or complete merger or the third alternative which are outlined in the Order Paper. Now our debate is on the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson.

(In Mandarin): Just now the Member for Delta has mentioned the fact that Members in the Barisan Sosialis have said that if a merger is impossible, then they are willing to wait. She has asked, how long should we wait? Mr Deputy Speaker, since the two territories have been divided for so many years and if we can wait patiently for so many years, there is no reason why we cannot wait until such time when we can get more favourable terms. Just now the Member for Mountbatten brought out an analogy of a man seeking a post as general manager. She said that if you are applying for a post of general manager and if you are not selected for it, and the boss asks you if you would condescend to become the assistant manager, you cannot say that since you cannot get the post of general manager you will refuse or reject the offer. But the issue of merger of Singapore with Malaya has a lot to do with the generations to come of Singapore. Merger is just like a marriage. It can be said in this way. We can give an example. For instance, if a person is old, thin and tall, you have the option to choose. You can say that since he is old, thin and tall, I refuse to marry him. You can say you are willing to wait until you find a suitable partner and then you both can get married. When you get a more suitable one, you can reject the old skinny one. In the same way, we can say that we can choose when the right time comes for the merger. That is why I support the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak against the amendment proposed by the Member for Thomson to put question (d) for the referendum. About this time last night, the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown was negatived, and we have spent the whole of today to discuss the second amendment put forward by the Barisan Sosialis. The amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown would amount, if accepted, to the posing of one question for the referendum with a "yes" and "no" answer. It is typical that during this debate on the question or questions for the referendum, the Barisan Sosialis exhibit in true style their switch of stand from one extreme to the other. From a one-question referendum, they are now putting forward the suggestion of a fourth question to be put in the referendum.

If you insist on the mode and manner.

Their idea is simply no merger at any cost.

No sell-out at any cost.

Sir, this amendment of the Member for Thomson seeks to propose that the fourth proposition to be put on the referendum paper would be their so-called genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on merger day. May I recount this question of the suggestion put forward by what the Member for Anson stated earlier on, that this amendment had the support of 17 Members of this Assembly since November of last year. Now, what has actually taken place during the last six to seven months is this. This question of automatic citizenship for Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens was revealed during the debate on the White Paper on merger last year in November. The Prime Minister was able to table in this Assembly a letter written by the Federation Prime Minister dated 13th of November, 1961, on this particular matter. May I, Sir, for purposes of record, just read out the two relevant paragraphs at least to refresh the memory of Members in this House? I quote, Sir: '...after our frank and thorough discussions of all the implications involving Singapore citizenship and merger, I have agreed that all Singapore citizens should keep their present rights and automatically become nationals of the new Federation. Consequently it is felt that representation in the new Federation Parliament should not be based on the total number of such citizens, large numbers of whom would be dis-enfranchised if the Federation citizenship and representation laws were applied. In this Context, may I reiterate that the argument that all Singapore citizens at the time of merger should automatically become Federation citizens cannot find acceptance under our Constitution.' Those were the words of Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, in his letter to our Prime Minister dated 13th November, 1961. Sir, today the Member for Queenstown disclosed to this House the exchange of letters between the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong, his letter dated 27th March. 1962. I quote the relevant paragraph of Mr Lim Ching Siong's letter: '...we feel that a free and frank exchange of views and discussion between us can contribute a great deal towards national unity.' And Tunku Abdul Rahman replied to Mr Lim Ching Siong, noting the request for an opportunity to have a free and frank exchange of views, and hoping to be able to meet at some future date for such discussion. Sir, we hope that the Barisan Sosialis will follow up on this letter, now revealed to this House stating their stand in black and white, what the Barisan Sosialis stand for on the question of merger ---

We debated it last year.

We hope, Sir, we shall be able, at some future date, at the proper time and place, for the revelation to be made and the Tunku's reply. I come next to the Workers' Party on this subject. My colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, at the sitting of 29th of June, 1962 - I am referring to the transcript at page 22 [Hansard Vol. 18, No. 3, col. 3l5] - I quote the Minister for Health and Law: 'Recently he [he, meaning the Member for Anson] wrote a letter to the Tunku telling him that the Workers' Party was quite prepared to accept that citizens domiciled in Singapore should vote only in Singapore and that candidates from Singapore for the Central Legislature should be citizens domiciled in Singapore. He also asked the Tunku if, in view of these acceptances, he would be prepared to consider a common citizenship for both territories. If he wishes it to be believed that it will be possible for him to get better terms from the Tunku than we have been able to get for the people of Singapore in the White Paper proposals, I challenge him to publish the Tunku's reply, I have seen the Tunku's reply and so have all my colleagues. The fact that the Tunku has given the Prime Minister a copy of his reply shows that he would not consider it a breach of confidence if the Member for Anson were to publish his reply.' When further challenged by my colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, to publish the Tunku's reply to the letter sent by the Member for Anson, the reply as shown in page 26 of the transcript [col. 322] was: `Sir, the reply to the Tunku's letter was considered by the Executive Council of my Party, and it was unanimously decided not to publish it.' I do not think I will go further about the kissing incident that he was about to perform. We hope that at some time, some place, the Member for Anson will publish that reply. Mr David Marshall rose ---

On a point of order?

On a point of clarification.

If the Minister will give way. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin resumed his seat.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Minister has read that letter, he must know, as every decent person knows, that for the welfare of this country and the harmony of its major races, it is inadvisable to publish it, and this constant egging is a shameful comment upon these people who say they seek communal harmony.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, everyone in Malaya, Singapore and the world knows that the Tunku stands for racial harmony and not those who pretend to pay lip service and are dishonest in their stand.

Thank you.

So, we shall wait for the publication if you have the courage to do so.

Order.

I have more loyalty than you.

Sir, that has to be shown and revealed - your loyalty ---

Not to you, I do not need to.

Sir, therefore this question of automatic citizenship, as I have shown, the Government has published the White Paper and also the exchange of letters between the two Prime Ministers which clearly show the position about automatic citizenship for Singapore citizens to enter the Federation. I have already indicated the part played by the Barisan Sosialis in attempting to seek clarification from the Tunku, and we suggest now that the Barisan Sosialis should follow up by writing to the Tunku stating their exact stand. The Workers' Party is not prepared to reveal the reply from the Tunku. Perhaps, to complete the whole picture, we will look forward to the U.P.P. writing a letter to the Tunku to say how well they can do in this respect.

They have already exposed you with all that.

Sir, this amendment by the Member for Thomson, on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis, is a mischievous amendment which cannot be accepted. In fact, it was rejected during the debate on merger last year. The function of the Opposition in a parliamentary democracy [Interruption] is not to oppose for opposition sake ---

For the sake of the Government?

--- but to be a constructive Opposition, to criticise and offer constructive criticism ---

And chuck out the minority Government now.

Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Nee Soon that if he wants to clarify any point, surely he can stand on a point of information or elucidation, and the Minister for Education will give way.

Therefore, this amendment suggesting a fourth question is irresponsible and mischievous and has to be rejected.

For a dishonest referendum.

The referendum that is to be placed to the people ---

Dishonest.

Order. I have already made this clear to Members in the Opposition, particularly those in the Barisan Sosialis. If the Member for Queenstown has any point to make, he can stand up, and I think the Minister for Education will give way.

The White Paper merger will be question one, and those who think that they are unhappy about the White Paper merger are entitled to show their preference for question two, 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. If there are people in Singapore who believe that the Borneo territories are going to get a better deal, this is where the Member for Cairnhill has put forward a suggestion which we think is a fair question to put. The Government accordingly accepts it and puts it down as question three. But if the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the U.P.P. have an honest and constructive suggestion to make, it will be the duty of this Government to take it up. But if it is mischievous, no. The task of a responsible government is to accept good criticism and incorporate it and to reject any when we know that there is an ulterior motive behind it to frustrate merger. I therefore reject the amendment proposed by the Member for Thomson.

In order to have a dishonest referendum. 11.07 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hour is drawing near and the Front Bench on the Opposition side is feeling relieved that soon a decision will be taken which will put an end to all the unnecessary lengthy debate that has taken place as a result of the political warfare between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., the Barisan Sosialis. As an Opposition that is sandwiched in between, we have been forced to listen to words of wisdom from the Government side and from the Members who sit behind us and we have come to the conclusion that both are dishonest. They are indulging in dishonest manoeuvres, and I pass this judgment. Both have graduated from the same school of distortion and both are practising it to the full. If one side had just been a little bit more honest, a little bit more guide by the principle of wanting to serve the country first, instead of wanting to kill the ex-comrades first --- An hon. Member: That is why you have to support. Another hon. Member: He denied it.

--- there would have been a healthier debate and there would have been a cleaner, a healthier and a less confused atmosphere. Sir, the Government side obviously is first by my judgment, but they remain silent because they feel that there is at least some justification. But the Members who sit behind me, who were not very long ago sitting on the other side forming the Government, feel hurt because ---

We do not need your support.

--- because the truth always hurts. Sir, let us now come to the various attacks that nave been levelled at the S.P.A./Alliance. the Party in this Assembly that reserve the right to declare the funeral day for the P.A.P., not the Barisan, not the Workers' Party, not even the U.P.P. Sir, my colleague, ithe Member for Tanglin, in a very honest presentation, tried his best to explain to the Barisan Sosialis who, by their words and by their actions in this Assembly, have lowered themselves to the position of school boys. So the Member for Tanglin, having been a schoolmaster for many, many years, tried to explain to them and used simple illustrations about doors that are closed and doors that are open. First and foremost, he was immediately attacked by the Member for Anson. What is all this talk about? Of course, he openly says that the Member for Tanglin is an honest man, and I openly say that the Member for Anson is an honest man too. He says, "How can he say that the door to the amendment is closed? How can he know that the door to proposition B is open, and the door to proposition C is open?"

Because he somersaulted.

Sir, the Member for Tanglin is using a simple illustration to school children who do not understand the elements of politics and the elements of parliamentary debate. So what he means by doors open are that these are the possible avenues where the electorate of Singapore can make a decision. He does not say that the Tunku would accept B or C. As I have said, in posing questions in a referendum, on merger one must pose all possible questions ---

And be honest.

--- as well as practicable questions, so that the choice of the electorate can be made known not only to the Government of Singapore but also to the Government and the peoples of the Federation of Malaya and to the world. If in their wisdom, the voters choose proposition B or proposition C and reject Crnd. Paper 33, they are free to do so. Then the Government of Singapore will have to take note of that and resume negotiations with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. The Member for Upper Serangoon says the door to C - that is to say, enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than those for the Borneo territories - is very dark. Sir, how does he know it is dark? I put in that proposition because some Members of the Barisan Sosialis tried to ridicule Cmd. Paper 33 and said, why should Singapore be offered something less than the Bornean territories? So here is an opportunity for the Barisan to go and preach that line - why should Singapore be offered less than the Bornean territories - and persuade the electorate to accept terms no less favourable than those offered to the Borneo territories. Of course, in order to know what the terms are, they will have to await the publication of the Cobbold Report. I will resist any attempt by the Government to pose question C if the terms offered to the Borneo territories are not known. It would be an unfair question ---

But it is known to you.

--- but if the terms are published, whether it is known to me or anybody else, it should be known to the electorate so that they can be guided in their choice ---

Hear, hear!

Order.

I am not suggesting in proposing proposition (c), and I have said so in this Assembly, that the S.P.A. is supporting it. The S.P.A. puts in that proposition as a contribution to see that the questions posed in the referendum are questions that will cover all possible avenues of closer association.

Yet you support the White Paper.

Order. I have already indicated to the Member for Oueenstown that too many interjections are completely disorderly. And if there is such behaviour, there is a Standing Order to deal with it, i.e. Standing Order No. 55.

Mr Deputy Speaker, like a schoolboy the Member for Queenstown finds it difficult to understand why one can believe in one thing and yet suggest another thing to be put to the electorate. It is for the electorate to pass judgment.

It is beyond him.

It really shows that the S.P.A. does not want to force the electorate to accept Paper Cmd. 33. If they like it, go ahead - enter Malaysia on the terms of any of the Borneo territories. Sir, in fact, the Barisan Sosialis has another 43 minutes to try to get their voice heard before Doomsday. That is why they have to keep on making the best use of the last minutes of their political attempt to disrupt merger. Sir, the Member for Anson has said a few things. He asks the Member for Tanglin - and, of course, he cannot stand up and speak under Standing Orders - how he can square the suggestion that (b) is open but (d) is not. (b) is open not because the Tunku has been heard to say that he would accept (b). (b) is open because it is a form of merger that is known and can be understood by everyone - by the electorate, by the Singapore Government, by the Legislative Assembly, the Federation people, the Federation Government, and the Federal Parliament. It is known.

That is what it means.

Sir, the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya is ---

Order. May I remind the Member for Cairnhil that we are debating an amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown? So if he goes too much into the details of propositions (a), (b), (c), and (d), he is completely out of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will be so guided. But I am trying to explain the digs of the Member for Anson. But I will leave it at that. All that I would like to say is this: the Member for Anson is at least honest in his desire to want this question posed. But in this Assembly, not only just now but on previous occasions, he has said that what he wants are automatic citizenship rights. But he is prepared to tell the people, "Not only will you have the rights but you, the people, will have to accept the limitations imposed under the Constitution." That is an honest presentation. But look at the Barisan Sosialis. They keep on talking about citizenship rights and not wanting to say anything else. The Barisan Sosialis are just playing on the emotions of the masses. It is easy to tell them, "second-class citizens" and get them so roused up that they will vote against Paper Cmd. 33. Is there such a thing as second-class citizenship in Paper Cmd. 33? I am afraid there is no clarity because of the distortions practised by the Government and by the Barisan Sosialis. If there had been an honest presentation, there would have been no confusion in the minds of the people. What has been agreed upon is that Singapore citizens cannot participate in Federal elections and Federal citizens cannot participate in Singapore elections. That is all. Federal nationality is brought in to give us all equal status. And as Federal nationals we can go to the Federation of Malaya at any time and do anything we want, other than stand as candidates for election or vote in the Federation of Malaya. The Barisan Sosialis seem to be very keen on wanting to stand as candidates in the Federal Parliament and to vote in the Federation. They overlook the fact that what is denied to us is also denied to the Federation citizens. Let us get it straight. Forget all distortions; forget all attempts to run down the other Party. Singapore citizens can only participate in elections in Singapore; Federation citizens can only participate in elections in the Federation. Apart from that we are all known as Federal nationals - wherever we go, whatever we do, we are equal. Do not start talking of second-class citizenship and play on the emotions of the people. Because they have been playing that line and because the P.A.P. has been trying to play that line - oh, the Penang and Malacca type of merger means non-local born citizens will lose their citizenship rights - therefore, this line about citizenship has been played up unnecessarily, so much so that the Barisan Sosialis, by their amendment, are trying to play on this line of automatic citizenship rights for Singapore citizens. What is the difference? The difference, in what they want, is that Barisan Sosialis members can stand for Federal elections and they can go there and vote in the Federal elections. That is all. But in exchange for that, what have we to gain? Complete control over Singapore affairs. Singapore will become just a State like any State in the Federation of Malaya. And what do we get? Nothing. Surely, Sir, we all know that in the present situation and the political temper of the people of Singapore, they cannot, even if they want to, accept with a happy countenance some of the policies of the Federation Government. And so because Singapore comes into this closer association and has certain powers reserved to the Singapore Government for the benefit of the people of Singapore, that is why there cannot be complete and unconditional merger. I said last night that we were prepared to listen to the proposition of the Barisan. This is what I said - at page 74 of the transcript, at the bottom of that page [Vol. 19, No. 2, col. 250]: '...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.' Because of the exchange of correspondence between the two Prime Ministers, they know that at this present juncture automatic citizenship is not acceptable to the Federation. But they want to demand it. What is the motive behind this demand. It is not to show that they are brave men, not to show that they have the interests of the people of Singapore at heart. But it is to do their best to damage merger. Then they say, surely if we cannot get what we want, we can wait. But, Sir, the trend of political events is that countries are swallowed into it, and much as we want to wait, we cannot wait. Three years ago when the PAP, came to power, everytime they talked of merger the Federation said, "No"; - because in the midst of the P.A.P., in the Government, in the Party, and in the - political machinery of the P,A.P., there were Communists and Communist front people. Now they have purged themselves and, therefore, the Federation Government thought it would be a good thing that instead of a complete merger perhaps they could try with a sort of closer association where both sides have to be on their best behaviour - Singapore has to be on its best behaviour in order to qualify for conplete merger, and the Federation has to be on its best behaviour in order to make Singapore feel that it is beneficial to go in for complete merger. So in this form of closer association that has been offered to us by the Federation of Malaya, by Tunku Abdul Rahman, in spite of his previous animosity and fear of having anything to do with Singapore - must that offer of friendship - be rejected, just cast aside, and we say, "No, we want the whole lot or none at all."? Of course, Sir, my colleague the Member for Tanglin has said that we might want to buy, but the seller might not want to sell. So it has been suggested by the Member for Anson and by Barisan Sosialis Members, who always echo the views of the Member for Anson ---

Their leader.

Never!

--- if we cannot have it, let us wait. Wait? How can! If we cannot buy the whole thing, the wisest thing is, if we are hungry, to buy half of it. To eat half a loaf is better than nothing. But they want to wait. They prefer to go hungry. But they will not go hungry. It is the people of Singapore who will go hungry. Not they, the Barisan Sosialis, and therefore they say, "We can wait." Wait for what? Wait for the Barisan to do more damage to the interests of the people of Singapore? That we will never agree. 11.25 p.m. Sir, at least there are some words of wisdom from the mouths of infants. The Member for Queenstown said - yes, he did say, Sir - that we must have the mutual consent of the peoples of the two territories. And he knows that the people of the Federation of Malaya cannot at the present stage accept automatic citizenship. Then why is he pushing it? Why are the Banisan pushing a case that they know is not acceptable? It is leading the people more and more to the conclusion, as it has led us, that they are out to damage merger and not to have merger. They say that the people should not be compelled - the Member for Thomson has said that his amendment is the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, ever since the Barisan Sosialis came into being, I have read and I have heard in this Assembly that there seem to be three stands. One is merger like Penang and Malacca, another is that Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia, and still another is, why should Singapore get less than what is offered to the Borneo territories? And now they come out with: This is our stand. Well, if that is their stand, let those who love the country, those who will fight and die for the interests of the country, resist any attempt by the Barisan Sosialis to damage the interests of the people of Singapore. Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon, because of the illustration given by my colleague, the Member for Tanglin, about doors, tried to read into his speech that he did not deny that the door to amendment (d) is a door. An hon. Member: It is a wall.

If the Member for Upper Serangoon is fond of talking of doors, may I say, Sir, that there is one door that has been kept locked by the Government? That door is the P.P.S.O. The sooner that door is opened, the better it will be to rid Singapore of this threat from Commumists and Communist front leaders. Open that door. The Member for Upper Serangoon can call it a dark door or any door. But I say it is a door for the security of the people of Singapore. The Member for Moulmein said that he did not intend to speak, he did not intend to waste the time of the House, and then he went on wasting 20 minutes of the time of this House! I find it very difficult to understand what he was trying to say. He was talking about citizenship. He was trying to talk about citizenship again. How can they keep playing that line - second-class citizenship? There is no such thing as second-class citizenship. I am sorry, Sir, to have taken too much time. But I would urge upon this House - we have another 27 minutes of important time before the guillotine is exercised, and when the guillotine is exercised, may it cut through the necks of the Communists and Communist front leaders. An hon. Member: Blood-thirsty!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson, there are three questions involved. There are three alternatives before us. One is merger as contained in the White Paper under Command Paper 33. The second alternative is a complete and unconditional merger. The third alternative is (c), that is, on terms like those of the Borneo territories. After a long debate on the Government's White Paper on merger, the Government has never changed its stand. It is clear that the stand of the Government is firm. On the issue of merger, they have recognised the objective fact of circumstances. They have ignored the objective --- Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): On a point of order.

Point of order. Mr Ong Chang Sam (In Mandarin): Just now the Parliamentary Secretary said that the third alternative is a Barisan Sosialis type of merger. As a matter of fact, we never put forward such a type of merger.

That is not a point of order.

(In Mandarin): Just now I said that the so-called Barisan Sosialis merger is, in fact, very shallow. I can quote a number of expressions to show what their merger means. Their merger is complete merger plus the moon, the sun, the stars. They want automatic conversion of citizenship. They want immediate general elections in the Federation, so that they can topple the Federation Government. The Members of the Barisan Sosialis have failed to recognise the practical circumstances of the two territories. They hope that if they make more promises, they can get more support from the people. They have undergone many changes. I understand this morning that our Party Chairman has clearly pointed out that the Barisan Sosialis stand changes occasionally. They maintain that if they change their objective from time to time, they will be able to get more and more support from the people. Let us ask the people of the two territories what they are short of. The P.A.P. merger can fulfil the wishes of the people of the two territories. The people of Malaya and the people of Singapore consist or many races. In Singapore the Chinese are in the majority, while in Malaya the Malays are in the majority. After a separation of so many years, there is some difference between the mode of life of the people of the two territories. But, on the whole, it is quite the same. Let us speak of the differences in the field of education and labour. If any political Party can put forward some plan to incorporate the differences in the two territories in the field of education and labour, then more or less they can eliminate the differences and work out a more satisfactory merger plan. I remember this phrase: Sink differenes and find out some common points. Then and only then will merger be easier. I am sure, under the circumstances, their type of merger cannot be implemented. Everybody is aware that their type of merger is not practical. Their actions are not objective. Mr Speaker, we know the Barisan Sosialis and the stooges of the Communists are bound to use all forms of intimidation to change the stand of other people. However, they cannot easily change the stand of the P.A.P. Since the introduction of the White Paper on merger up till now, we have never changed our stand. Why? This is a strange question, Mr Speaker. I feel this is a matter of principle. The P.A.P. principle is quite different from the principle of the Barisan Sosialis. One is based on the Malayan context, while the other is to suit the united front policy to achieve their own ends. That is what I said. The two fundamental stands are quite different.

Order. Will the Member come back to the amendment? Time is getting short. I must remind the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a guillotine against the Opposition.

(In Mandarin): I do not intend to lengthen my speech. I just want to bring up some analogy to illustrate the principles of the Barisan Sosialis. Coming back to the amendment. You will remember that at the inauguration of the Barisan Sosialis, they had no platform. They copied the political platform of the P.A.P. word for word. They adopted our political platform and said that that was their own political platform.

Order. I do not think that has anything to do with the amendment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I cannot finish my speech because there are some points which are connected with the amendment. The stand of the Barisan Sosialis is quite different from ours. That is why I have to point it out particularly. In our platform there is stated non-Communist. But in the platform of the Barisan Sosialis there is no such word as "non-Communist'. That exposes their ugly side. On the issue of merger, just because we are non-Communists, that makes the difference between us ---

Will the Member come back to the amendment?

(In Mandarin): During the debate today, the Opposition Parties have been saying that they are serving the people. That is why they are making a noise here in the interest of the people. How can they serve the interest of the people? In my opinion. their type of merger is to create more conflict between the various races. Now, the one man representative of the Workers' Party has sought to make himself out to be a very extraordinary lawyer, a wonderful lawyer. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has said that he has a very bad temper. That spils everything. His policy is a policy of "tailism". They are toeing the Barisan Sosialis line. They are just like the Barisan Sosialis stooges living the life of people who are being the line of others. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the people of Singapore and Malaya today listen to the "tailism" of such leaders, it will be very unfortunate for them. 11.45 p.m. Mr Ong Chang Sam (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that I can answer in four minutes all the unreasonable accusations from the Government side. The Member for Delta asked us why we want to seek citizenship rights for 624,000 citizens. My answer is that the citizenship rights of these 624,000 citizens are their basic democratic rights which should not be thwarted in any way. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Cairnhill said that if full merger could not be secured, then half merger would be quite good. He said that if we could not get all that we wanted to buy, then why not accept half of it? In my opinion, the White Paper merger proposal is not just one half of something that we want, but it is poison, and that is why the people cannot accept it. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill asked that apart from the Barisan Sosialis merger proposals which provide for automatic citizenship, what else could the people of Singapore get? If the question is as simple as that, then the Federation Government has no right at all to reject the request that all citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the short speech of the Member for Cairnhill, we can clearly see that he has entirely changed his stand. I quote from the Nanyang Siang Pau of 4th July, 1962. The Member for Cairnhill said that all political Parties should discard all party differences and seek unity among themselves in order to promote a closer relationship between Singapore and the Federation. No matter what the Barisan Sosialis or the Workers' Party merger proposals are, we should let the people decide on them. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday we only debated the three alternatives. Now, our amendment was rejected by the Government and the S.P.A. The fourth alternative introduced by the Member for Thomson is in line with what the Member for Cairnhill has said, that there should be adequate questions for the people to choose from. However, you can see that the Member for Cairnhill is not interested in looking after the interests of the people of Singapore, but after the interests of the P.A.P.

The original Question, as amended, 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; or (c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories." Since which an amendment has been moved, "at end, to add `or (d) genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day'.". Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 29; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Ahmad Jabri bin Lee Siew Choh. Mohammad Akib Leong Keng Seng. Buang bin Omar Lin You Eng. Junid. Lingam, S. V. Byrne, K. M. Low Por Tuck. Chan Chee Seng. Marshall, David. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Keng Swee. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, 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. Ahmad bin Ibrahim Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Hoe Puay Choo, Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Madam. M.Ismail Rahim. Koh, C. H. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Rajah, A. P. Sahorah Binte Ahmat, Ramaswamy, S. Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Abstention. Toh Chin Chye. Nil Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Amendment to the orginal question as amended,accordingly negatived.

The original Question, as amended, is now before the House. Mr David Marshall rose ---

Two minutes, Mr Marshall.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the smokescreen is now complete. We have before the people allegedly three questions for a referendum, when, in fact, there is but one, and that is not a question, Sir, because you are not allowed to give an answer yes or no. There is no choice of answer. You must say yes and therefore there is this position that we are now allegedly giving the people a referendum, when, in fact, all they can do is say yes to the one proposal, Command Paper 33. I have but two minutes, Sir. It has been shown to you that proposal (b) is the one which the Prime Minister suggests is mine. We have put our stand very clearly in the amendment which they have now just defeated. Sir, he suggests that we can put it to a Commission of Jurists or Judges. If he can assure us or obtain - not he, I am not interested in the P.A.P. corkscrew assurances - or if we can have an assurance from the Prime Minister of the Federation that he would be content to give us what a legal commission would consider to be the true meaning of that proposal, I would be happy to accept it. But to leave out ---

Order. It is midnight. In accordance with the decision of this House, I am to put the Question. Question put, "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; or (c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories.".

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 17; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S. T. Haji Jumat. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri Bin Fung Yin Ching, Mohammad Akib. Miss. Buang bin Omar Lee Siew Choh. Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Byrne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, David. Chor Yeok Eng. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Eng Guan. Kandasamy, G. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Khoon Choy. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Kuan Yew. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Teck Him. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Yew Hock. Mammen, John. Abstention. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Nil. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M.Ismail Rahim. Absent. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Rajah, A. P. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Ramaswamy, S. Koh, C. H. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Rajaratnam, S. Tan Kia Gan. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Original Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved, 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; or (c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories. Mr Speaker; Item 3* is not being moved - the motion standing in the names of the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown. *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 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+ - a motion standing in the names of the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Upper Serangoon. Does the Member for Queenstown wish to move simpliciter? +"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."

I beg to move simpliciter. Question put.

Division. The House divided:Ayes, 17; Noes, 29; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. 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. Marshall, David. Goh Keng Swee. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Eng Guan. Ayes-cont. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, 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. Abstention. Mammen, John. Nil. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Absent. M.Ismail Rahim. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Ong Pang Boon. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Rajah, A. P. Koh, C. H. Ramaswamy, S. Rajaratnam, S. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Tan Kia Gan. Madam. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob Bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Motion accordingly negatived.

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