Hansard, 1963-07-30

asked the Prime Minister who were the members of the Singapore team that attended the inter-governmental financial talks in Kuala Lumpur on 10th and 11th April, 1963.

Sir, the members of the Singapore side at the meetings of the Inter-Governmental Committee who discussed financial arrangements with the Federation side in Kuala Lumpur on 10th and 11th April, 1963, as on other occasions, were the State Advocate General, the Permanent Secretaries to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Economic Development Division, the Ministry of National Development, the Secretary to the Cabinet, my colleague, the Minister for Finance, and myself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand that the Prime Minister said that he attended the meetings?

I said what I stated, Mr Speaker, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister what is the progress in negotiations on the question of compensation for the massacres by the Japanese Army in Singapore in the last war and what further action he intends to take.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I was away, the Japanese Consul-General saw the Deputy Prime Minister regarding a gesture of atonement to be made by the Japanese Government. As I understood it, the view of the Japanese Government was that, since it was a gesture of atonement, to talk in terms of a specific sum of money would not be conducive to a settlement. This was what I understood from the Deputy Prime Minister. They said, however, that they would consider a donation for a project like a cancer research centre or an indoor stadium or such like public amenities. I shall be seeing the Chinese Chamber of Commerce Committee in charge of this matter shortly and will thereafter see the Japanese Consul-General.

asked the Prime Minister (i) when will Government repair the road in Kampong Chia Heng, Mergui Road, Joo Avenue and Starlight Road, and (ii) when will street lights be installed in these roads.

Sir, some time before the Member for Moulmein took notice of these matters, the Director of Public Works had already served notices on the frontagers of Mergui Road and Joo Avenue of his intention to make up these roads under section 143 of the Local Government Ordinance. The roads will be made up and will also be provided with street lights. Street lights were already installed at Kampong Chia Heng on 6th July, 1961. No doubt, the residents of Starlight Road and Kampong Chia Heng will make their views known to me when I visit the Moulmein area shortly.

asked the Prime Minister what is the total expenditure incurred from Government funds on his tours of the Anson, Tanjong Pagar, Telok Ayer and Hong Lim Constituencies on 14th July, 1963.

Sir, the total expenditure incurred from Government funds was the cost of petrol used by the vehicles of the official party accompanying me, amounting to approximately $6.80.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Prime Minister whether this sum of $6.80 included the wages paid to the members of the Work Brigade as they had to put up banners and other decorations?

I think the Member for Pasir Panjang will be advised to make his enquiries in a much more discreet and polite manner from the Committees in the Tanjong Pagar, Kreta Ayer, Anson, Hong Lim and Telok Ayer areas.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider amending the Pensions Ordinance so as to enable Government officers to retire with pension, gratuity or allowance, before their retirement is due, in order to be nominated as candidates for election as members of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore or of the Federal Parliament of Malaysia.

I certainly will consider the possibility of amending the Pensions Ordinance to enable Government officers to retire with pension. gratuity or allowance before their retirement is due provided it has the overwhelming support of this House. I think gestures such as this are usually made once in the history of a people, and that is just before they get independence. I am quite prepared to consider this matter provided the House is with me.

Could the Prime Minister indicate when he would consider making such an amendment?

I have just had notice of this question, Sir,I will be quite happy if the Member would support it with a memorandum and I will circulate it to all Members of the House and ask for their views thereon.

Thereafter, the Prime Minister is supposed to reconvene the Assembly?

At the appropriate time, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I have explained publicly outside, this House will go into recess on Thursday evening. I am quite sure Members are aware that the Government is installed, or can be if it wishes, for the rest of the financial year till December 1963 and for three months thereafter. But I can assure Members opposite that we will go back to the people and renew our mandate quite some time before then.

Mr Speaker. Sir, under the provisions of Standing Order 18 (1), I seek leave to ask the Prime Minister a question without notice to whom I wrote this morning at very short notice referring inadvertently to Annexure I that I think is apparent, from the copy of the letter you have, is Annexure F. In Annexure F of Cmd. Paper 22 of 1963, a reference is made -

Order. As is required, the hon. Member did give me prior notice of his request, and it appears to me that a question of this nature does not strictly come under the provisions of Standing Order 18 (1) which says: `A question shall not be asked without notice, unless the Speaker or in his absence the Deputy Speaker is of opinion that it us of an urgent character, and relates either to a matter of public importance or to the arrangement of public business and the Member has obtained the permission of the Speaker or in his absence the Deputy Speaker to ask it.' I say it does not come strictly under Standing Order 18, because I think the opportunity will present itself to the hon. Member to ask that question during the course of the debate.

2.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation that this motion be proceeded with. I beg to move the motion standing in my name. As the House will have noticed, my motion has been phrased in several parts: In pursuance of the resolution of this House taken on the 10th June, 1963 that there should be an early settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of the White Paper (Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961) and mindful of the long and arduous battle for merger, this House WELCOMES the successful outcome in the final agreement reached in London on 9th July, 1963 which agreement contains the terms in the said White Paper with amendments made on a quid pro quo basis, Singapore getting a Malaysia Common Market written into the Constitution in return for a percentage of Singapore's revenue of national taxes instead of an annual lump sum as contribution for Federal services in Singapore, and - This is of some importance, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I would like to underline these words - TAKING COGNIZANCE of the exchange of memoranda on the financial arrangements as in Misc. 4 of 1963 which sets out the basis on which the Singapore and Federation Governments arrived at their respective percentages and the component parts thereof, and - I would also like to underline these words - SUBJECT to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the exchange of letters between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government and the Singapore Government and the British Government contained in Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, this House ADOPTS the constitutional provisions and amendments contained in Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963. I would like to underline first. Mr Speaker, Sir, that this adoption is subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the exchange of letters. As Members may be aware, some of the conditions and terms agreed to between the British Government and ourselves and the Federation Government and ourselves are - the British Government with regard to Service lands and $10 million for the Second Infantry Regiment, and, from our point of view, for reclamation of land in place of land retained by the British Government for the bases; and in the case of the Federation Government the other items set out. First, may I apologise, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the somewhat lack of melody in my voice, hut I can assure the House that I will try my best to be audible, to be simple and be straightforward, because what is required now is some straight talking. Sir, I do not know if Members have received copies of our proposed amendments -

There is a paper intituled "Malaysia Agreement Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963 Corrigenda", and a letter dated 25th July, 1963, from the Prime Minister of Singapore to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Are those the two documents?

That is so.

They are with the Clerk and can be distributed.

Yes. Have they been distributed, Mr Speaker, Sir? Would they?

Yes. Copies of the documents distributed to hon. Members.

I am not quite certain how the Prime Minister proposes that this Corrigenda should get into Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963. Subject to what the Prime Minister has to say, perhaps it might be convenient if this Corrigenda be marked as Paper Cmd. 23 of 1963, and later on, at the end of the motion, there could be added a reference to the further amendments as contained in Paper Cmd. 23 of 1963.

Thank you very much for this proposal, Mr Speaker, Sir. I so agree that it be named Paper Cmd. 23 of 1963.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister again. I understand there is already a Paper Cmd. 23. This should be Paper Cmd. 24.

So be it.

Mr Prime Minister, please continue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate, which will end on Thursday evening, marks the end of an era. That era began in 1945 when the British troops returned to Malaya and, by a unilateral act of the British Government, Singapore was severed from the mainland. The struggle went on inside and outside official bodies, the then Legislative Council both here and in the Federation, until 1948 when the M.C.P. launched its armed revolt. It reached a turning point in the year 1957, August 31st, when the British decided to grant Malaya independence, but not Singapore. Singapore, it seems, was ordained to remain forever in semi-tutelage with internal self-government but with supreme authority in matters of defence, foreign affairs and, for that matter, internal security in the hands of the British Raj. I do not wish to detail an account of the years 1945 to 1948 or, even more unpleasant, the years 1948 to 1957. Suffice it to say that this unilateral division of the country was never accepted by the peoples either of the Federation of Malaya or of Singapore. In Singapore, for the purposes of this debate, the last few chapters began with 1955, when the first semi-elected Assembly assumed office with elected Ministers working with British officials in charge of Home Affairs and Finance. Year by year we went back to London with more or less greater or lesser results. And for us, the last chapter to merger really began with 1959. Then for the first time power, other than defence, foreign affairs, and internal security which were shared with Malaya and the British, was bestowed on a completely elected Government. Sir, the history of Singapore and indeed the history of South-East Asia may well have been different had we decided any other way. In 1959 we were quite convinced, even before we assumed office, that there was no other way. The nexus between Singapore and the Federation was so complete that to perform dissection would have taxed the skill of the greatest political surgeons who ever existed, and certainly there were none either in Malaya or in Singapore or, for that matter, in Britain. Singapore, it was generally recognised, was dependent on Malaya for many things. 40 per cent of its entrepot trade, nearly three-quarters of its water supply. And it was believed that with a friendly Government in the Federation, Singapore could be kept indefinitely a military base in semi independence. In 1956, the Member for Anson, to whom history has given a few lessons - or he has chosen not to learn from them - led an All-Party delegation. It failed, partly because he did not understand the circumstances in which Singapore was placed and the determination of the then British Government that it should remain in semi-tutelage. I urged the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, a very able and forceful character, who decided to give independence to Malaya, that he should, despite the advice of his officials, tie up Singapore with the Federation, for there was too much at stake. As it was, the talks failed. We returned, and the British, in a completely empirical manner, true to their traditions, played for time and played their hand out for the last few years, from 1956 to 1959. We went back each year, in 1957, to reach agreement in principle; in 1958, to sort out the constitutional details. By then, the Secretary of State for the Colonies had accepted the fact that if Malaya was lost to the Communists, then Singapore could not be held. Indeed there was every danger that the Communists would be more successful in finally capturing this area if the territories were kept apart than if the territories were kept together. But it took another two years - from 1959 to 1961 - before the British were convinced of the next step of the argument: that if Singapore was not in Malaya, then Singapore and Malaya would ultimately be lost to the Communists. The British had hoped that the Government that would come into office in Singapore would be satisfied with what the former Chief Minister (the Member for Anson) described as "the sensation of power", the Prime Minister, the Ministers of the Government, and even one Infantry Regiment to do it honours. But real power resided with them. They expected an elected Government, i.e. us, to keep their bases viable. In order to do that, the anti colonial struggle must be muted and the Communist menace crushed from time to time as it manifested itself. And indefinitely we went on as a semi-colony. It took a full two years before we brought the British Government round to the view that our conclusion was correct. If played that way, both Singapore and Malaya would be lost. Slowly the unpleasant and brutal facts were placed before the Federation Government. What had been publicly known was that Malaya was vital to Singapore, but what we did not emphasise, lest we offend our friends across the Causeway, was that Singapore was vital to their survival. Quietly over the golf course, sometimes even across the poker table, and sometimes over a meal, a friendly discussion always came. It had one theme song: merger is inevitable, either by consent or by force of one territory over the other. Let me say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the possibility of Singapore overwhelming the Federation is not a possibility to be altogether dismissed. Being what we were, having regard to the susceptibilities of our friends in the Federation, the line was put over softly, gently, and politely. Finally a note was struck in the hearts of the Federation Ministers. On the 17th of May, the Tunku came down to announce that he had decided that there should be a closer political and economic association of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, and the three Borneo territories. The rest of that is recent history. Suffice it to say, on 3rd June I responded. On 10th June, my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister stated terms which were basic and fundamental to a successful merger, terms on which merger could be achieved between the Federation and Singapore. Autonomy in many matters, including Labour and Education. Then the real fight began. For the first time, after shouting and denouncing the British for all these years since 1945, the Malayan Communist Party did a right-about-turn. They denounced merger and Malaysia as a piece of neo-colonialism. Sir, I do not know whether they really believed in it. Perhaps they have shouted it for so long that they have bemused themselves into believing that it is true. But today I will tell part of the story. I cannot tell the whole story because sometimes recent history should be allowed to pass without comment for time to mellow judgment. I know enough and I can disclose enough of recent history to prove that it is not a colonialist plot. It took a lot of persuasion and argument to bring the Tunku around to merger. And he only wanted merger with Malaysia. Sir, I do not blame him. Being what he is - anxious to preserve what he thinks are the valuable traits in the Federation, a stable rural population that provides security and ensures the continuance of the Alliance Party in power - he was reluctant to embark on a project the result of which he could not foresee. Without the Borneo territories, the Chinese would outnumber the Malays and, with it, the logical consequences of its effects on the balance of power. Sir, the British encouraged the Tunku to believe that eventually he could get the Borneo territories because it was a good idea and generally it was a good thing. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, in November/December 1961 there was a little bit of argument as to the future of the defence bases in Singapore. The argument was presented as a problem of defence bases. But, in truth, it was the reluctance of the British to give up their territories in Borneo. That was a backwater - silent, calm, placid - and their rule could have endured for another decade or more. The Governor of Singapore - a gentleman of no mean talent - felt that he had served his penance in Singapore, as Chief Secretary and then as Governor when he had to govern through the then Chief Minister. He governed. He was not anxious to upset North Borneo and its peoples; neither was the Governor of Sarawak. But I give this compliment to the British, as I give to an adversary whom I respect, a compliment not to be lightly dismissed. Competent, capable, with a great deal of knowledge of the ways of men, like an electronic computer with an immense amount of data fed in, data of over 400 years of governing and manipulating human beings. For two years they tried to manipulate us into doing what they thought was the role of the Singapore Government - keep the bases viable, break the Communists up from time to time, and carry on. For two years we resisted. Then one day they decided that it just could not go on. And the fight began. The greatest ignominy that had befallen the Communists was the fact that a Scottish feudalist - in their terminology, I do not call him a feudalist as I think he is extremely competent in his own way as a representative of an Empire, persuaded a group of highly suspicious and security conscious Communist-front operators to come out into the open, and the fight began. The Communists were playing hide and seek - for the Government, against the Government, sometimes for so long as it is for the benefit of the people, as they say, sometimes against. The Tunku was not contemplating merger or even Malaysia for that matter. What he wanted was a clean-cut decision, then he would take over security for both Singapore and the Borneo territories. And he wanted no more than security. It is partly because of these historic beginnings that we had such an immense amount of trouble subsequently. After Anson, we had that motion of confidence in this House one night, and the break was final and irrevocable. Then we talked business with the Tunku. There was no pre-arranged or pre-conceived plan as they thought. They were bemused and deluded. The British arranged in the midst of the Anson by-election to bring their Governors over for unnecessary consultations to arouse their suspicions, put them in a state of fright. They panicked and broke away. They came out from the bushes and made a bid for power, an action they will always regret. Their policy was the united front. If they cannot unite with nationalists who are democratic socialists, who on earth could they unite with? So they have found themselves in an ignominious alliance with the Liberal-Socialists, the United Democratic Party -

The Member for Anson.

The Member for Anson. They even tried to inveigle the Member for Hong Lim. But there was no more cover. It was a bit of nylon for a fig leaf and when the rains came, it was most embarrassing. All this was a tortuous process, and what was required was absolute and utter determination and the nerve to see it through. Even right now, it needs nerve to see it through to the 31st of August. Not me, just one man, because one man cannot see this through. It needed sufficient resolution in the whole group of men. I am proud that it has been the privilege of my colleagues and myself to have played a part in this. We settled the terms. Because the Tunku was fearful of labour troubles, general unrest, instability in Singapore and possible bankruptcy, he was anxious to have as little as possible to do with us as he could. But he knew he could not afford to give away security. What he wanted was the police, army and foreign affairs. The rest we can run ourselves - An hon. Member: Prisons.

Yes, prisons. I beg your pardon. Thank you. My colleague has just reminded me. The three of us - the Minister for Culture, the Minister for Finance and I - brought the wrath of the Communists on us because we went up there, played golf, talked over dinner and lunch. They hated us more than the others because we forged this thing. We put in civil aviation and telecommunications because we think it makes nonsense of a federation for us to have to make a trunk call every time we want to go to Johore. Then the White Paper was agreed, the basis of which was that we should have 15 seats in Parliament. This is a few seats less than what we would be entitled to in a complete merger. In return for this, we ran our own State. Mind you, at that time, Mr Speaker, Sir, the general impression was that we were bankrupt because there were strikes, banners, protests, marches and a whole host of other things which made Singapore appear, on the surface, financially an unattractive proposition. But all that time when we were drafting that White Paper together, the Finance Minister knew that he had a surplus each year, calculated and designed, meant for development - a surplus of over $100 million. Then came the Cobbold Commission because the Tunku stood firm that he would not go ahead without Borneo. So through the months of argument, debate, the open encounter, which ended with the referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, the moment we settled that, new problems began. For then some very unwise politicians in the M.C.A. in Kuala Lumpur thought that since all was agreed now, was passed, then they could not only eat their cake, but also have it. So you see in Paper Misc. 4 of 1963 a curious exchange of memoranda. Sir, they have to be published because at the end of 1964 a review must take place. In our computations, even at its inflated best, even with confrontation and the Army and Navy and Air Force doubled and internal security for Singapore no longer the responsibility of the British, but four battalions must be raised locally, we do not believe that money can be spent, nor indeed will be spent. Because to get $1.80 from us, the Federation Government has to spend $8.

20. So I do not think they will spend it. Knowing the Finance Minister and his colleagues, I do not think they will spend $8.20 just in order to do us in by $1.

80. That is the ultimate figure we have arrived at. Now, you will see in Document I, the first proposal by the Federation side. Meanwhile the officials had been meeting. We met the Ministers for the first time on the presentation of the paper dated 21st of March, Document I. There was the proposal. I am sorry to have to go into this, but it is necessary to place this on the record. The Member for Cairnhill says this is all a lot of eye-wash. These documents speak for themselves. There was a proposal that they should collect our money, contrary to the terms of the White Paper. They wanted to collect because by then they had discovered that, far from being bankrupt, we were a prosperous State and, therefore, if they collected and doled and paid for our expenses, they would collect a surplus of $110 million each year. In Document II is our counter. We said we were prepared briefly to give them a share of Singapore's prosperity, provided the Federation ensured that Singapore prospered. And it could only prosper if it had a Common Market on terms which would allow over a period of time an adjustment of Singapore's economy. Any sudden cataclysmic change would have been disastrous. That paper was rejected by the Federation side in Document III. The only concession they made was they were still to collect, but they would keep only half the surplus. Not unnaturally, my colleagues and I were not greatly impressed or grateful for such a suggestion. Then the long wrangle - part of it on the golf course, part of it in the conference room, part of it over the luncheon table. Finally we got down to calculations, and Documents IV and V are projections of revenue and expenditure for 1964, based on actuals for 1961 and on provisional actuals for 1962. In Document VI, on 10th of June, I made a statement to this House. I was convinced, and so were my colleagues, that merger was inevitable. But I was not convinced that the success of the new Federation was inevitable, and it was our duty to ensure that in so far as is humanly possible it should have a good start. To plunder Singapore, which Document I would have done, would have been a bad start. I would not have put my money on it if we had agreed to Document I. Because then over the years, as the people realised the financial implications of the terms on which we were absorbed by the Federation, bitterness would rancour in their hearts; and without a successful Singapore, Malaysia could not succeed. Document VII, Mr Speaker, Sir, is what is known in the newspapers as "the ultimatum". I saw in the newspapers the Member for Cairnhill waiting patiently outside while the ultimatum was being considered inside the Cabinet room. I do not know whether he was for Singapore. But even if he was, I wondered whether that was the way to fight for Singapore. Sir, this is an extremely complex situation. If you fight too harshly and too hard, then you bring about bitterness that is bound to endure into Malaysia, and make the sense of unity and purpose and amity between the peoples less likely. If you yield and give way, then you will be raped and plundered, and that makes Malaysia a certain failure. So between the two extremes, a balance has to be struck. I do not want to deal in detail with the financial arrangements. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, who bore the brunt of the detailed work and the argument with his counterpart in the Federation, will do so. If I know him, he will do so competently. Document VIII was our reply. It is not easy, Mr Speaker, Sir, - no, Document IX, I am sorry, the point-by-point reply. Document VIII was the ultimatum. Document IX was the reply. On the 22nd of June, on a Saturday, we sent a letter. If Malaysia was a neo-colonialist plot, all this would have been unnecessary. The British had the power constitutionally and in actual fact to bring this about. But I think they were wise in not exercising that power. They allowed free and open negotiations leading to a voluntary and satisfactory conclusion. If Malaysia was a neo-colonialist plot, today Brunei would be in Malaysia. For the Sultan exists and survives by leave and licence of the British Army. But they are also sufficiently wise and prudent to understand that the ruler has the support of the large bulk of his people, sufficient for even Azahari to treat him with some respect to leave well alone. But I am quite sure too that the gradual process of attrition, the wearing-down process of argument day in day out will finally ensure that fair and just terms are agreed and endorsed by the peoples of Malaya and Brunei. I am not unhopeful of the future. I have read what has been said in the papers, and sometimes I think it is wiser not to say some of these things. But nevertheless, I think the Sultan was deeply hurt by many things that happened in Kuala Lumpur. I think also some of the Federation Ministers, in their state of anxiety, were unnecessarily severe in their expressions to the Sultan. I am also convinced that this electronic computor which has learnt how to handle chieftains, revolutionaries and revolts and mutinies over 400 years, even though getting a bit old and not quite as good as it used to be, will bring its whole force to bear on this little sultanate and eventually Malaysia will triumph by reason, by argument, by logic, and not by force. I can pay no better tribute to them than the fact that in the last round they really beat us in London. Sir, we had them, as the expression goes, by the neck. We had settled with the -

By the throat!

Sorry. By the throat. We had settled with the Federation. We had not settled with the British. We had put in our claims. All W.D. lands with no title to be returned forthwith to Singapore. Consternation, Mr Speaker, Sir. Meanwhile the Secretary of State had joined forces with the Federation to coerce us into getting us to cough up for Borneo. Finally, $100 million, interest free for 5 years. Originally, it was almost a hundred per cent labour, Mr Speaker, Sir. All labour which cannot be found in Borneo must be taken from Singapore. The Tunku intervened. But before that, the moment it looked like settling, we presented the claims. Then the British said they would cough up the lands. But only part of it. So we said $20 million must be paid as compensation for lands which are retained. I am quite sure that if only we had waited another 24 to 48 hours we would have got the money. But for various reasons the Tunku believed that 8th July was a lucky day by the stars. The British knew this and they worked on him because they could not work on us and get us to give way. We lost because the Tunku said we must sign on that night and so the signing began at quarter to twelve on the 8th of July. I think it ended about 12.10 in the morning of the 9th of July. And we had to give up. From $15 million we agreed to $10 million. Was this a neo-colonialist plot? The basic factors were there, and the moment the U.K. Commission here drew the Communists out into the open, their days were doomed. They allowed the fight to go on. In the last resort the gun would have to be used, but they left it alone. Very wisely too. They made a decision in 1957, when the Member for Cairnhill was the Chief Minister, and again in 1958 - he did not make the decision; the Governor did - that the P.A.P. shall go on. The then Director of Special Branch, when he saw the way the elections were going in 1959, decided to hop it.

What does that mean?

That means scoot! If they had their way, they would have done the stupid thing, as they always do, Mr Speaker, Sir. They never calculate. They always play poker, as I often do with the Member for Cairnhill and with the Tunku, just to pass the time of day in order to get one or two odd points in. I always lose. I never win. I am no good at bluffing. It is true, Mr Speaker, Sir. The game of bluff is one which I find a very unprofitable and a very hazardous thing to do. I am telling him right here and now. There are no cards closed; five cards in hand: changing - pretending to change two, keeping three. None of that. My cards are on the table. It is within the power of the Opposition to block this. If it does so, Malaysia is postponed: there will be general elections. But I am confident, because the bits and pieces on the chess-board have been calculated. Even if he wanted to, U.M.N.O. cannot do it. They cannot go against the signature of their own Tunku. And this is what the bundle of documents handed in means. The Tunku has agreed, and unless they want to disavow their own parent organisation, they must vote for it. Therefore, it will go through. And I speak this knowing the bits and pieces on the chess-board, as we always try carefully to calculate the possible moves and counter-moves. Mr Speaker, Sir, at last we have reached almost the end. Another 30 days. Midnight of 30th. One second past midnight, I hand over security, police, prisons, Army. I will no longer have an Infantry Regiment to salute me. They will only line up outside this Assembly by leave and licence of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia. But as against that, I will no longer have to look and care for the safety of the Members opposite. So it is not such a bad exchange. We are going to keep 72 to 73 per cent of our revenue. The calculation varies according to the projection. It is between 72 and 73 per cent. Of course, even before the agreement was signed, they denounced it. They have always denounced it. The noose is around their throats and they know it. And those whose hearts are guilty must be unhappy at nights. And that is as it should be. They have 30 days left. All I want is peace, quiet, tranquillity for the next 30 days. And I mean it. Whilst I am in charge, it is my duty to see that law and order is maintained. If anybody breaks it, he meets the consequences of the law. It is quite simple. There are the courts. We go in accordance with established practice. The Member for Thomson complains bitterly. He got the Member for Cairn-hill to side with him. As I have said, he does not know which side he is on, except that I know he is always on his own side.

The wrong side.

In this case, I think he is on the wrong side, as my colleague has said, because if he has been going around, he will know that there is a great deal of feeling about this. A blunt unthinking act. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the broad agreement - the financial terms which for two weeks really occupied so much of our time and tested our nerves. We are giving 27 per cent of our total revenue, or 40 per cent of national taxes, not giving it away free. All the police officers will be paid by the Federation. We have 5,000 officers as against the Federation's 20,000, i.e. 25 per cent is in Singapore, to be paid for. Prisons - we have got two. We are now going to build a new one and knock down the old one. I have said it will not be my responsibility, but I am quite prepared to forward any memoranda on the shape and size of the windows for sunshine and whether the bedsheet should be on the left-hand side or the right-hand side of the wall. The people who have tried to ruin the country ought to be grateful that no worse fate is in store for them. Prisons, Telecoms, Post Offices, Civil Aviation, the Courts and Judiciary -

Meteorological offices.

Even the Meteorological office. An hon. Member: Make rain this time!

We will make rain. Do not worry. Singapore always forges ahead, Mr Speaker, Sir, despite everything. We innovate. We started T.V. We started rain-making. We will start a lot of other things. That is in the nature of things. Sir, in return for this we have a Common Market. I expected this to be received at least by right minded men who are not Communists with rapturous applause and praise for the Tunku, if not for me, at least for generosity of the Tunku and his Deputy. But the Member for Anson has again gone off the beam. I read in the newspapers that he has denounced it as a sell-out: that we in four years have done more damage than the British did in over a hundred years.

Than the Japanese.

Than the Japanese. I do not know whether he knows that this is the end of an era. It will not be unfair to put it in this way: that as things get tougher - and things will get tougher because, as I have said, we are not showered by congratulations as we come into being (very far from it) - we have to be on the lookout for enemy agents. I mean "enemy" in the proper sense of the word, in war. And those who aid and abet the enemy will go down with him, and we will suffer none in our midst. This, I am sure, reflects in a very mild way the views of the two Ministers I met last week - the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation and his close colleague, the Minister for Internal Security. I saw them with regard to the matters in the letter which I have tabled in this Assembly. I also discussed a few other things about the transitional provisions on the 31st August. I can tell them and the Members on the other side that although we have our quarrels with the M.C.A., we have none with either the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation or his colleague, the Minister for Internal Security. That is because we did a lot of calculation. I can tell them that knowing them for what they are, they are not likely to shirk the responsibility to use their strength - and they have strength, Mr Speaker; the Opposition to Malaysia should believe me when I say that they have strength; do not believe that all these little upheavals in Penang and Taiping are going to upset Malaysia. No. They have real basic ground strength, and they have no hesitation in using that strength to see that Malaysia remains secure, prosperous, and progressive. We are with them on that. Sir, the Member for Anson has criticised the Common Market. I will leave the details to my colleague, the Minister for Finance. All I would say is this: eight wise men, learned in these matters, came from the World Bank. They are men who drafted or helped to draft some of them, the Treaty of Rome, on which the prosperity of the European Economic Community was based. The report has been published. Annex J of Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963 sets out all the main terms of this Common Market. I quite believe the Member for Anson is an intelligent man. In fact, the then Colonial Secretary in 1956 said, in a rather patronising way, that he was quite an intelligent fellow. But the trouble with him is that he is too clever. I am prepared to put my reputation on this matter on the side of eight learned experts, practical men of the world, whose business is high finance and economics as against the judgment of the Member for Anson. I am quite happy and satisfied to test public opinion by the expressions of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, whose President has welcomed it, and who is, in fact, in the midst of setting up a few factories, and very wisely too - why not, and miss the opportunity? - the Indian Chamber of Commerce, the British Singapore Chamber of Commerce. These are men of commerce and trade is their lifeline, and they say, "This is good." Five years of complete free port status while we industrialise product by product. For the next seven years, we gradually harmonise. And we can refuse to put on any tariff but pay them a percentage of the taxes which they would have got had we put a tariff on. In other words, we have 12 years in all. If we cannot succeed in 12 years, then I say, we do not deserve to succeed; we really will perish. And it will be because of the evil machinations of men opposite, and their smiles will be wiped off their faces when the moment of brutal truth dawns on them. This is literally the end of this era, Mr Speaker, Sir - three more days (today, tomorrow, and the day after), then we adjourn sine die. When we meet again, it will be under the new Constitution. We shall probably miss some old friends and some old enemies, and maybe the country would be the better for it. I make no bones about it. We have fought and put our lives in our hands, and our necks on the chopping block. For two years we have fought them. And I will fight them for another 30 days, and never flinch from it. I beseech the Member for Queenstown not to misjudge the situation. Twice he has already made an error of judgment, now leading to a lot of inconvenience - flying out counsel - to himself and his colleagues. I would much rather that they led more quiet and peaceful lives. They nearly started one in the Harbour Board with 100-odd hard core chaps. I say, the Fire Brigade is ready. Let us have no arson before the 31st of August. After 31st August if they want to take on the Malaysian Army, Navy, Air Force, together with the P.K.I. on their side, it is up to them. Good luck to them. I have not the slightest doubt of the outcome and if they are in doubt, they should have their heads examined. Sir, repent? I say no. I should not say this because I would like them to sleep well of nights. Sir, merger always has been a historical necessity and those who oppose it will, in Marxist phraseology, be buried by history. My colleagues and I on this side have read enough of Karl Marx to understand their thinking. Buried by history, Sir, is a phrase which means you are a fool. I mean "you" metaphorically. You went against the current and inevitable process. My colleague says it is not too late. Well, good luck to them. Maybe if they change, go to church and pray, or kneel down, count their heads, there is still time. As I have said, the battle really began in 1945, 18 years ago. But for the last four years, the dramatis personoe have been -

Yes, 14 of them. They thought they were going to win. I am not interested, Mr Speaker, Sir, in who wins or loses. I am determined to see that Singapore survives as a coherent, sensible and happy society. I have a stake in this, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not sell the Tunku De Havilland aeroplanes or try to build airports. I am not in the contracting business. But I have a family here rooted, unable to run away, and I am determined to see that Singapore remains a happy and sensible place where nobody is slitting each other's throats, shouting mass slogans and ending up in chaos and anarchy. There will be a new play when we next meet. After this Session, we will prorogue. There will be a recess, a new Constitution, and new dramatis personae. But we will be deluding ourselves if we believe that the Communists have been disposed of just by merger and Malaysia. We will be deluding ourselves if we believe that by scrubbing out the Barisan or knocking out a few of the front leaders the ground position will be resolved. The ground position has improved not because the Barisan has been scrubbed out but because they have been left there to make mistakes and to expose themselves for the lot of political adventurers and opportunists that they were - anti the people. Finally, that is what they came to. They who talked of the masses ran away from the masses that night in Hong Lim. Sir, whatever our shortcomings - I do not make any pretence; we have quite a number - there is no anaemia amongst my colleagues. We do not suffer from leukemia. We have enough red corpuscles to see the country through. Yes, we lost Hong Lim two years ago. We will go back and fight again. They booed us at the referendum. They got booed back. They booed us at Jalan Besar. They were booed back, and they nearly ran away too. But that night at Hong Lim one week ago, was poetic justice. All I did, Mr Speaker, Sir, was to draw the attention of the crowd to the fact that here were people who were moaning the fact that the country was going into a haven of security and prosperity. And they got so frightened that they switched off the lights, ran down the stairs and scooted. [Interruption in Mandarin] The camera does not lie. They are always afraid of the camera. They go round like bandits tying handkerchiefs and covering up their noses. Why? Are these really heroes of the revolution? Did Lenin do these things, stay in his Party headquarters and send pregnant women into battle? Really, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not bothered and concerned with the front leaders, but I am bothered and concerned with the gentlemen that I have met whom the police cannot find, and they are men of no mean calibre. Yes, I concede that we have never made the error of under-estimating our opponents' capacity for harm, and they have enormous capacity for harm. With a small group of people, they can mount an enormous offensive. At the last rally in Shenton Way for the referendum, they were really good, Mr Speaker, Sir. I can only think of the Catholic Church as equally well versed in these things - the expertise. I was watching the Coronation on television in Europe as it took place by Teistar linkup, and Pope Paul was `crowned not inside St. Peter's but outside in the Square with 500,000 people watching. It was a really massive demonstration and an emotional experience not likely to be forgotten by those who took part, and on television for the world. I am quite sure they must have studied some of these things. I happened to be in St. Peter's when the first Pope appeared on television and it was quite a fascinating experience. I have said this before, without irreverance, that I admired and respected the technique. The Pope came out in his palanquin shouldered by chaps with scabbards and hats and so on with due pomp and panoply. As he came down the aisle, I heard shouts of "Viva il Papa" and the crowd underneath shouted "Viva il Papa" and nuns and other devotees went into an ecstasy. Then I looked up at the pillars and at each pillar on the aisle was a set of choir boys. They knew how to do it. They triggered it off with "Viva il Papa" and there was a ground reaction of "Viva ii Papa". It was very good, Mr Speaker, Sir. When 1 saw that Coronation, I said, now that was the way to install a Government - not this silly business. We tried to do that in the City Hall but it was not quite as good. Next time, we will do better. We live and learn. Oh yes, we always learn. Never make the error of believing that we are obtuse, obstinate and obdurate. When we make mistakes, we admit them and we learn from them. The old Ministers used to be sworn in inside Government House - a little private cosy party - and then they drank sherry with each other. But the Pope was there. There were 500,000 people in St. Peter's Square packed like sardines and everybody who took part in it would remember it to his dying day. And they tried to do something like that in Shenton Way. We watched it. We sent chaps to watch. Five hundred chaps will suddenly walk off and then walk round the block and come back the other side. So you get a feeling that lots of fellows are coming to the meeting. In fact, they are the same chaps - the same 30,000 fellows. That was what they had there - the maximum. But they were good - the clapping and the cheering. They were trained and they made a lot of noise for 30,000 chaps. But then the ballot boxes were opened that night, the Member for Nee Soon - he has lost interest now in life generally or lie is fed up with all politics and quite rightly so. If I were him, I would be fed up with politics. [Interruption] Yes, his survival instinct is the best of them all. He is the most intelligent chap of the lot. That is why he cannot be bothered with all this. Why should he? This is all leading to an impasse, a confrontasi from which there is no retreat. And he does not want to be in it. But let us never forget that the battle goes on. We will be deluding ourselves. And I want to stress this because sometimes in jest one says things which are taken seriously. I do not believe you can resolve these things by just chopping off a few heads. It cannot be done that way. It can be done - we have demonstrated that it is possible - by two concurrent weapons. One is economic and social progress, an expanding economy, a rising standard of living and rising expectations. We turned the tide, Mr Speaker, Sir, when we built houses, homes, schools, clinics and community centres. There was the tangible evidence of a better life. That is the first arm and that was why we were determined that we should keep our money to provide amenities to the people even if it meant no merger. But it would have brought merger anyway because there was too much at stake. Even if for the moment, let us say it was postponed for six months or for one year, it would have come hack because the basic factors have not changed. The other arm is the open argument. They lost out on the open argument. They were telling lies to the people that they were sold out on citizenship. The Member for Anson, who was with them, suddenly right about turned and bit them and said, "Oh, miraculous." Now he has decided that he has no chance to cash in on the pro-merger support. So he goes hack to anti-merger. What he lacks is a little bit of ballast in him, otherwise he would not be doing these things. He is like a straw in the wind. He is a bit erratic. As I have said, in that one year when he was Chief Minister, never was so much humbug enacted by so erratic a Chief Minister in so short a time. I have to crib Churchill for that. I think that was what I meant. [Interruption] No, Sir. I will not be so unkind as to say that. One makes up one's mind where one stands. Everybody recognises after a while; it may take sonic tune. People thought we did sell out Singapore and so on. They were spreading the lie to the people. They thought that with their cadres on the ground and signing all these petitions and organising and, according to them, 98 per cent of Kreta Ayer was against merger. So they said. When the ballot boxes were opened, they got the shock of their lives because Kreta Ayer had the least of the blank votes. What was it - three per cent, four per cent? Three or four per cent. They were clever people. They were not like our Alliance friends. Our Alliance friends were waddling around not knowing what it was all about. But they had 14 chaps. They knew that we wanted to know where their support was. They did not know which constituency was on which table; but we had to have 51 tables for 51 constituencies. I concede when my opponent intelligently beats my plan. They knew that if we wanted to know the result we must count table by table. And so into the ballot boxes they threw in the ballot paper and the polling card which showed the constituency. It was very clever. A submarine device; an anti-submarine mine. The next time they go there, they will find that we will also put in polling cards of many constituencies all into the same boxes. They will then have to think out another way. But the men behind them are intelligent. They never did this. I wanted to do this the intelligent way because I know the battle goes on. So I said, "Fifteen seats, fight it." No power is attached to the 15 seats. This is important. But the men behind are intelligent. They never did this. For with the 15 seats we could have proved to the world that the people of Singapore were for Malaysia definitely beyond any doubt. We could also have found out how much their support has been whittled down in the one year. Yes. And if anything goes wrong, it does not matter because it is a controlled experiment. It is only 15 seats. No power. 15 in 159 seats. There was a long-stop. The wicket-keeper, long-stop. But I am thinking of obtuse gentlemen now. A forced 51 seats before March next year. They probably thought they could get an advantage, an edge over us. We had also taken that into account. Hence the back of the envelope says "delegation of powers to detain secret society gangsters." That is one of the amendments in Paper Cmd. 24. There will be no gangsters running around at election time. They have also learnt. We live and learn. If chaps switch sides, the next time they will go out of this Chamber. Why not? Anybody who comes into this Chamber on the basis of his Party's symbol, when he backs out from the Party, he leaves. Yes. We must be prepared to live, learn and innovate. And I say we will do it. What is more, if we are intelligent, we will succeed. Sir, before I go into the constitutional provisions - I will take probably 45 minutes to draw Members' attention to the important parts - I would like to place on record my appreciation and that of my Government for the dedication of a band of officials who were not only able but who also worked very hard. They went beyond the normal bounds of duty. They fought for what was right for Singapore to do the right thing by the Government they serve. I would like to say to them that their effort was appreciated. It made a big difference because it saved me from having to read every single document from cover to cover. I have to peruse them. But it does help if we know that some sharp intellects have been through them, marked up the parts which looked dubious or spurious and left me to decide. Our problem, over the years, as the enemy underground increases in intelligence and experience, is to find more and more people of ability on our side, because ultimately this battle can only be won if there are enough men of integrity and ability to run the democratic system. Two things are fundamental. If there is no integrity the whole thing is a humbug. If it is self interest, then it will go down in corruption, decadence and disarray. If there is integrity, piety and goodness but without the ability to give it the drive and the dynamism that it requires, then it cannot go very far. That is our problem, both in the public service and in public life generally. And as we secure stability in Malaysia, it is more likely that we will draw men out. More and more are taking on duties and responsibilities beyond their professional lines, as members of public boards and statutory corporations. More and more will be convinced that they have a duty and a role to society if they want the good things that they know and the good features of this system to endure. Sir, now may I run through very rapidly the important provisions? I have not the slightest doubt that they will be attacked by Members on the other side. I am not the slightest bit concerned because they are honourable terms. They can be defended and justified at any time and every time. Sir, first, if they will turn to what is the most important section - page 73 of Paper Cmd. 22. There in Part II, Members will see our local autonomy: Education, Medicine, Labour and social security, Pensions, Factories. Concurrent List - List IIIB. These are all under the control of the State Government. I think I would like to draw the attention of Members to item 20 at page 74: `Until the end of August, 1968, and thereafter until Parliament with the concurrence of the State government .... elections to the Legislative Assembly.' And so all this humbug that the Singapore Government cannot be trusted to conduct the elections will now cease. This is what the Tunku signed and agreed upon. Sir, there is one section for which an amendment will still have to come. There will still be several amendments. One is the authority for prosecution by the State Advocate-General. That will be made by an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code. We are not quite sure yet how best to do it. The parliamentary draftsmen in Kuala Lumpur and our State Advocate-General are in consultation. Then, if I may run quickly - page 98 of the Federal Constitution. Article 131 provides for appeals from the Supreme Court to the Federal Court. Then at page 35, Article 50 of Command 22 of 1963: Audit. Then pages 213 to 231, minor amendments to the customs, excise and income tax laws under the financial agreement. Members know that this was a vital matter in issue. Who collects'? This is a matter of very great importance. I am happy to report that we have resolved it. We will collect and the power is delegated to us irrevocably, and the only way in which it can be revoked is if the Singapore Government is unable, unwilling or incapable of collecting, and whether it is or is not, it is a matter which can be tested in the courts. That is provided for in the Annex, page 230; paragraph 10. "Disputes as to interpretation or application of this Agreement." In other words, it is a justiciable issue, not one which is for the Finance Minister of the Federation to decide. Broadcasting and Television - page 232. Members will see that we are in charge of the staff, administration and the day-to-day programmes. We will have, as we expand, the right to have more radio frequencies and channels for transmissions of television programmes. Any over-all policy will be of pan-Malaysian application unless, for some reason of national interest or of national importance, it should be applicable in the rest of Malaysia but not in Kuala Lumpur. In other words, what was agreed in the White Paper is now enshrined. Page 137, Article 8: Cabinet to exercise general control, direction of government. Page 19, Article 23: Citizenship. I do not know what the Member for Anson is complaining about. He said that it was miraculous in August last year when we all became Malaysian citizens. Now he says it is second-class citizenship because we are not allowed to vote in the Federation. I just do not understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir. He knew that there is no change in the position. It was as stated. What is enshrined here was what was stated in the exchange of letters in July and August last year. I may add that the voting disability is reciprocal. They cannot come here. We cannot go there. Common Market and Tariff Board, page 34: Article 48 (c). The constitution of this Tariff Board and rules cannot be altered without our concurrence. Sir, I want to make this point. All these State responsibilities - religious freedom, education, labour, Tariff Board - I think there is some misunderstanding, particularly with the Church, and I had to make a statement on freedom of religion. No government can bind all governments for all time. It is not in the book of law to do that. What we can do is to hind ourselves. If some future State Government gives the concurrence to the Federation to alter this, then these things can be altered. They are alterable with consent. It may well be that 50 years from now, when we become more homogeneous, more united, I think in the long run perhaps quite a lot of these other items should go to the centre. But it must be done on a quid pro quo basis. If more goes to the centre, then as we put in more money to the centre to discharge its responsibilities in the centre, so we should send more representative to the centre. But the point I would like to make is this. All these State privileges which are safeguarded are safeguarded to this extent: that the Constitution cannot be changed without the consent of the Singapore Government. I think lawyers understand this. But I would like to stress it for the purpose of the lay reader, particularly to the newspapers and other mass media, that a future State Government which is not committed to this policy can change it. I draw your attention also to page 26, section 32, "Liaison as to citizenship". They have to inform us of naturalisation, and I think they must be on a concurrent basis. They are going to naturalise as Singapore citizens and other citizens - sections 31 and 32. Then on pages 38 and 39, the Singapore branch of the Public Services Commission, section 55 (1) to (8) . Mr Speaker, Sir, you will find the Constitutional safeguards in page 47, section 69, the most important paragraph of which reads: `No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Governor [`Governor' here means the Yang di-Pertuan Negara] if the amendment is such as to affect the operation of the Constitution in relation to Singapore as regards any of the following matters -', and one of them is religion in the State. In other words, there can be no legislation. As I have stated publicly, I am not a supporter of immorality, but my Government does not intend to introduce any legislation regarding khalwat (I think it means "found in close proximity under suspicious circumstances"), and other offences connected with the Muslim law, and so on. Then page 30 - there is now an amendment which will be included in page 30, for delegated power to the Singapore Government to detain for secret society activities. The C.P.I.B. - I think this is a very important section - is contained in the first of the letters in Paper Misc. 5, at page 2: `Sixthly, it is agreed that because of the interest of the Singapore Government in the prevention of corruption, the organization of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and the powers of the State Advocate-General in relation to the prevention of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance. 1959, will not be altered without the consent of the Singapore Government.'. Sir, I have tried to get that point into the Constitution, but I am afraid time was so pressing on the 8th of July that we had to leave it only in this exchange of letters. I would like to point out that where there is a response in reply to an exchange of letters, then that goes into the Constitution. For the others, they are covered in my letter of the 22nd of July where there is just an agreement. But it is open to a subsequent Government in the Federation - I do not think the present Government will go back on its words - if it is a non-Alliance Government, to go back on it if it desires, because the C.P.I.B. will not be enshrined in the Constitution. But the fact that it continues and will continue with civilian investigators will be a very powerful deterrent to keep in check the excessive use or any abuse of power of officials in all departments of the State. If I may mention particularly those departments who think that because the Central Government is far away - like Police and Immigration which will pass into the hands of the Central Government - 260 miles away, therefore, they might get away with it. Therefore, it is useful that we should have these powers to prosecute locally through the State Advocate-General and civilian investigators. Elections is at page 63, section 95. There you will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, provision made for the Singapore Government to conduct the first elections. These 15 elected representatives will go on beyond the general elections which will be held in the Federation after Malaysia Day. Our intention then was that elections should be held before Malaysia Day and then the 15 elected would take their places in the Federal Parliament, and when the Federal Parliament dissolves, as it must under the Constitution in the middle of 1964, these representatives will remain Members for the life of the second term; in other words, for the first Parliament elected throughout Malaysia. However, our plans are somewhat altered now in view of the decision taken by the Opposition, and I think we shall have 51 Members here before our representatives will appear in the Federal Parliament. There may have to be some interim provision for a token representation by representatives. I do not propose to have the 15 elected from this House. It may well be that we might send two or three Ministers to represent Singapore until the elections for the 15 representatives take place, which I hope will be done not so very long after Malaysia now. Sir, the fundamental liberties are all enshrined in the Federal Constitution - for easy reference, the second edition of the Federal Constitution (Articles 5 to 13) can be found in pages 28-32. And it is subject to section 60 of Paper Cmd. 22 at page 4l-2, which says that so long as we have autonomy in Labour and Education, there will be power through Education and Labour laws to prevent double enjoyment. Sir, I made this quite clear in my statement to this House which was published in the financial arrangements, Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, when I stated that this provision had been agreed to. I think it is Document VI, at page 50 of Paper - sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, it has not been flagged but I will give the reference later and I do not think I should take the time of the House. I made it quite clear then. I will give the reference at a later date, and I think it is also in Hansard. You may remember, Sir, that there cannot be double enjoyment. It is as much in our interests as in the Federation's interest, because if either side introduces free secondary education - let me put it in a neutral way - ahead of the other, then there is bound to be a drip of students from one territory to the other seeking that free education. And since tax is paid by one territory - it is only paid by the residents of that territory - then the enjoyment of the rights of free education should only be limited to people of that territory. By way of example, if we give free secondary education, then we would want to have the right to prevent students from other territories coming into our schools and vice versa. Similarly in the first phase of factories in Jurong, we may, not unnaturally - and I do not want to over-emphasise this point because we want to be flexible about it - want to have the right to ensure that only Singapore citizens are employed in the factories. And similarly if a steel mill were put up in Johore next to an iron mine, they may - not that they will - require as part of the terms that only citizens of Johore are employed. And so on. Free port status, Mr Speaker, Sir, page 226, sets out the Common Market arrangements and the gradual erosion of the free port over a period of 12 years, right up to 1975. The franchise of Singapore citizens is set out in page 26, Article 31. The reciprocity is there - citizens and nobody else vote here, and Malaysian citizens who are not Singapore citizens cannot vote here. We will have to decide later on on the basis of reciprocity, the residence period required before a man decides to be one or the other. Financial Arrangements - Annex J. Financial Review - page 229, paragraph 8. I think that is a matter of some importance: `The arrangements specified in paragraphs 6 and 7 above shall remain in operation until31st December, 1964. The two Governments shall then review these arrangements and shall decide upon any amendments to be made to them in respect of the two year period commencing 1st January, 1965. There shall be a similar review in respect of each subsequent period of two years. In default of agreement between the two Governments, any issue in dispute shall be referred to an independent assessor appointed jointly by the two Governments. In default of agreement between the two Governments on the choice of an assessor, the Lord President of the Federal Court, after considering the views of both governments, shall appoint an assessor from among persons recommended by the Inter-national Bank for Reconstruction and Development as being persons enjoying an international reputation in finance. The recommendations of the assessor shall be binding on both governments. Such reviews shall have regard to all relevant factors.'. Hence, the importance of Paper Misc. 4, for, in our contention, as you will see from the papers that we have put up, even on the basis of their full Defence expenditure being, in fact, extended, which we doubt and I do not think they will do it just to spite us, because, as I have said, they have to spend $8.20 to $8.30 to our $1.70 to $1.80 for which they have to spend the rest of their $10 from their own pockets, and they have to take into account donations made by the British or other friendly governments to us for Defence. I would like to restate or state again our position. Our view is that on their figures, we say it is 34.3 per cent of national taxes or 23 per cent of the total revenue of Singapore. We have agreed to 40 per cent because of the importance of the 8th of July and because we wanted to make a concession in view of the fact that the Common Market was agreed to be in the Constitution. But after 31st December, 1964, there will be a review and what is important is this: that although we may be only a State Government, if in the review we do not agree, then an independent assessor has to be appointed. And if we do not agree on the assessor, then it must come from a panel of persons put forward by the World Bank. So there can be no question of bias in these matters. I would like to stress this particular point for the information of Members because one of the points made by the Opposition is that we have given away a lot of money which is quite untrue. Three-quarters of what we have given away will be spent in Singapore itself, which we are now spending in Singapore - Police, Prisons, S.I.R., Telecommunications, Civil Aviation, Meteorological Office, and the extra one-quarter is for internal security and defence expenditure which we now have to incur because we are part of the Federation. We also pay part of foreign affairs which we do not have now, and part of Parliament, the 15 seats which will be warmed in the Central Parliament; somebody has to pay for the leather being worn out. Freedom of movement, I mentioned this yesterday, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is another important provision at page 42, section 60 (1) . You will find that in sub-section (3), we are adding in this amendment now: `any such restriction shall apply reciprocally to the States of Malaya and the State of Singapore'. It should really be in "the States of Malaysia". I think the draftsman has forgotten this. It should be the States of Malaysia. We may not wish to take any person from Malaya and I have already mentioned a few of the gentlemen who used to give us a lot of trouble. There are two types - political undesirables and secret society elements. We have the right to request that such a person shall not enter our State, just as the Federation will have - I saw in the newspaper today someone mentioned "Sheik Azahari". It was not Sheik Azahari I had in mind. What I had in mind was Said Zahari, the former editor of Utusan Melayu, who is a Singapore citizen. He came back to Singapore and he found the Federation causeway blocked against him and he never went back. Well, in the same way, we have quite a number of gentlemen, Mr Speaker, Sir, who do not add much to the prosperity of Singapore and, who, in fact, increase the general police expenditure, the C.I.D. expenditure of Singapore. They can well be looked after by the State from where they came. House of Representatives, 15 seats, page 13, Article 9. Judicial and Legal Service, page 37, Article 54 (3); appointment of judges, page 17, Article 17. Then, languages. In this Assembly (page 46) it will continue as it is, which is the point Members on the other side from Barisan Sosialis ought to remember. If the country had chosen Alternative B, complete merger, they would all be disqualified even from this Assembly because many of them cannot speak English or Malay, even after four years of free tuition. Sir, the definition of "Malays" will now include Malays born in Singapore, and that is included in page 77, right at the bottom - Article 160 (interpretation). It means really that all the special privileges which a Malay can get in Malaya will now be available to the Malays born in Singapore. I would like to make the point that in Singapore the position remains as it is. In other words, there is no ratio for licences or other profits, Government patronage and jobs in the civil service on the basis of race. We believe in the principle of open competition that has been accepted by the Federation and it will continue after Malaysia. Muslim religion, page 137, section 6. The Agong will be the Head of the Muslim religion. Naturalisation to be with the concurrence of the Singapore Government, page 23, section 27 (7) . Then Permanent Secretaries and State Advocate-General to continue as they are, page 139, Articles 18 and 19. Now, police officers, page 56. Sir, may I pause with police officers? There is a certain amount of disquiet. I have had to discuss this matter with the Deputy Prime Minister in the Federation and the Minister for Internal Security because there is some unhappiness at the contemplation of the police here losing their present salary scales on promotion. What it provides therefore is that no person shall lose anything after Malaysia. Sir, I am advised - and Members will have seen my letter to Tun Razak and Dr Ismail, and they have agreed to confirm this in a letter - that nobody will lose. The problem is, what happens on promotion? Grade for grade, the Federation pay is slightly less than ours. According to some officers, it is appreciably less. My officials, my Permanent Secretary and the State Advocate-General, advise me that section 85 (2) (a) "shall be employed on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before Malaysia Day" means that his promotion prospects also cannot be reduced. Sir, I do not want to press this matter too hard on these matters which have been agreed, but I would like to point out that what may happen will be that if the Police Force insists on that and gets an interpretation of this Section by the Federal Court, very few promotions or new designations may be created. One problem would be, supposing the establishment were reduced for each of the grades and then new grades are created, something, something Pegawais instead of A.S.P., is put on the Federation post. Therefore, my point is that it is not profitable to pursue the legal argument to the end. They may well win the legal argument. I can see the merit of the argument. But it is much better to go on the substance of the case. We are paying to the Federation the full sum of money we are paying the police; that is included. We are paying a sum of money with projections on the basis of present salary scales. That is the important point, Mr Speaker, Sir. Projections on present salary scales. In other words, if they cut down salaries on promotion, then our contribution to the Federation will go down. If they do that, then we must press for it on the review on 1st January, 1965. I cannot hind the future government, but for myself I will be trying to press that very hard and take the savings from that and give allowance to officers serving in Singapore. We are doing that, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of the Judges. In fact, we are doing more than that in the case of the Judges. There will be a Bill put through on a Certificate of Urgency to settle the Judges' salaries and that of the State Advocate-General. You will find it in my letter to Tun Razak. They will go on to the Federation Judges' basic, which is higher than ours. But for the present officers, that will mean they will lose in the allowance from $400 to $120. So the State will make up the difference of $280, and other perks will be carried on the State Budget. In other words, the Judges will get the benefit. We are paying the Federation the full sum of money which they will have to pay our Judges; that is included in the 40 per cent. And on review, that will also be taken into account. They will have to pay the Judges. The lawyers will appear on the State budget, I think. We will carry over and above that the sum of $280 to make tip for the fact that they should not lose the allowance. It is, on the whole, a fair and reasonable solution to what is after all a difficult establishment problem. I would like once again to make the position clear to the Police Force - and this applies also to the Army - that nobody will lose anything; and I would say they have a very strong case to take the total gross take-home pay, even on promotion, as what they have today, because we are paying for it. I think the argument is invincible. There is no gain-saying the fact that since we pay for it, we ought to get it. The standard of living in Singapore is high, and that is that. I think it is unconscionable for the Central Government to make the State Government pay what it is now paying and then to reduce the salary and keep the balance. I am quite sure that is not the intention of the Federation Government. I would like to give the police officers the assurance of my Government that we shall try and resolve this in a way which will be conducive to a unified Malaysian Police Force. There are problems of a Malaysian Police Force, because if the Malayan and the Borneo police were to come up to our level, then their budgets will really go up very high, because their scales, particularly those in Borneo, are much lower than ours. But then their cost of living is lower than ours -

Order. If the Prime Minister is going on -

No. May I just finish the constitutional point, and then I will wind up? Because I have only got another 10 points to make. Police Force Commission, page 105, Article 140 of the Federal Constitution, second edition; not of this. The present machinery for the collection of taxes to continue, page 228, section 5, Tax Collection, and it cannot be altered without our agreement. That is section 10. The authority is irrevocable unless the State Government shows it is unwilling or unable to discharge this function sufficiently. I do not think anybody can accuse the Singapore Income Tax Department or the Singapore Customs and Excise of being either incompetent or unwilling -

Too willing!

"Too willing" says a Member of the Grand Alliance. Pensions liability, page 147, Article

78. And then page 46, Article 68. I would like to read this one. Sir, this is a matter of some importance to draw the attention of Members to. These are points which would have been lost in a complete merger: `Nothing in clause (2) of Article 8 or clause (1) of Article 12 shall prohibit or invalidate any provision of State law in Singapore for the advancement of Malays;'. This is in order to allow us even after Malaysia to give Malays free education, right from school to university. The Federation Government is unable to do this because their Constitution prohibits them from discriminating in education between races. But as against that is the clause that there shall be no reservation for Malays in accordance with Article 153 of positions in the public service to be filled by recruitment in Singapore or of permits or licences for the operation of any trade or business in Singapore; in other words, free competition into the public service. I would like to stress this point, "to be filled by recruitment in Singapore" includes posts in the Federal service recruited in Singapore. In other words, the Police Commissioner for instance, recruiting policemen in Singapore will not be bound by any four to one ratio. They are posts to be recruited in Singapore and there is no question of a four to one ratio being applied.

Even in the Federal service?

Even in the Federal service. If the post is recruited in Singapore, even in the Federal service there will be no restriction. Let us assume, for instance, the Director of Telecommunications, recruiting several technical assistants; then the Director of Telecommunications, Singapore, recruiting in Singapore will recruit regardless of race. In other words, opportunities on the basis of free competition, with the special position of Malays in education, Malay settlements. If they want business licences, then I am afraid they will have to go to Johore or some other State, because that has been agreed with the Federation Government that that shall be so. The State Advocate-General - page 139 of Paper Command 22 of 1963, Article 18 to 19. Secondment or voluntary transfer - page 167, Article 102. Sir, the point here is that the position of any person who is seconded to the general public service or the Judicial and Legal Service of the Federation, as the case may be, is safeguarded here. He can, if he likes, opt to go into the Federal service or remain on secondment as he wishes. Then, in page 144 - I read in the newspaper something about some Opposition Parties thinking it is not a good idea, but I would like to point out that this has been agreed - section 30 (2) (b) (this is the State Constitution) reads: `(2) The seat of a Member of the Legislative Assembly shall become vacant -

if he ceases to be a member of or is expelled or resigns from the political party for which he stood in the election;'. In other words, any person winning an election on a Party symbol, if he quits the Party or is sacked, loses his seat. I think that is as it should be, to provide stable governments between elections. For five years between elections, there is no more musical chairs in this Assembly. The Member for Queenstown does not like the P.A.P. He won the elections on the P.A.P. ticket. He will have to go back to the electorate of Queenstown and fight on his own symbol. That has been agreed with the Federation of Malaya. Members will have noticed that in my letter to Tun Razak and also on the envelope signed by the Tunku. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara - page 135, Article 1, a Yang di-Pertuan Negara to be appointed Head of State by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting in his discretion. In page 137, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall appoint the Prime Minister and, on his advice, appoint the other Ministers. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara to assent to laws - page 147, Article 42. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara to exercise the prerogative of mercy - that is in the Federal Constitution, Second Edition, page 50. Article 42. And here perhaps it is a convenient time to adjourn, Mr Speaker, Sir.

I suspend the sitting and will take this Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of citizenship, you will remember that I reported to the House that I had agreed that there should be no double enjoyment, and I thought it was in the Miscellaneous Papers. I was mistaken. Mr Speaker, Sir,It is in Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 2, Friday. 5th of April, column 25. "Progress Report of Constitutional provisions for Singapore in Federation of Malaysia in accordance with White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961". It reads as follows: `Another point is the spelling out of State autonomy with the consequential provision that Malaysian citizens who are also Singapore citizens cannot have double enjoyment of both State autonomy in matters like education and labour and at the same time have full enjoyment of education and labour rights in the other State.' The section which I am quite sure the Member for Anson is going to raise a hue and cry about is a reciprocal section. In other words, it does not mean that we will exercise these rights, but it does mean that if either the Federation of Malaya or Singapore has free secondary or - let us say for the sake of argument - free university education, we could stop students from the other side coming over. Similarly with the factories, we could, if we wanted to, restrict the factories to employment of only Singapore citizens. This is the constitutional position. I do not think in the long run that it is conducive to a united federation to do this. We have done this, because the Borneo territories have sought to keep our labour out for the time being. H is a concession we have to make to them, because there is a genuine fear in Sabah and Sarawak that they will be overwhelmed by more energetic and more sophisticated technicians, merchants and bankers, and so they have put in this provision. Therefore we have also put in this provision purely as a reciprocal safeguard and ultimately I think as a bargaining counter. If they put their fences down, we will put our fences down. To give a simple illustration, there is no university in Borneo and they will either have to go abroad on Colombo Plan scholarships or seek admission to the University of Singapore which is nearer than the University of Malaya in K.L. We accept them in the Polytechnic, the University and all the technical schools as a rule. Even the Nanyang University has Borneo and Sarawak students and we would like to continue that practice. But constitutionally speaking, as long as they have a fence up against our workers going there; in other words, so long as there is a certain amount of exclusiveness on their side and, for that matter, on the Federation side, so we must have the right to exclude if we wish. I emphasise that in the long run, these barriers must go. As the Federation grows in unity, particularly under the threat of external pressures, it is inevitable that we will all grow closer to one another, because our problems are the same. We share a common fate, and the chances are. if one part of the Federation goes under, so will the others. But I would like to make this point. It has often been referred to by the Barisan Sosialis Members and also the Member for Anson has taken up the cry of second-class citizens. I say in Malaysia, far from being second-class citizens, I would be proud to be a Singapore citizen. And it is a privilege to be a Singapore citizen, because you have public housing which you do not have in other parts of Malaysia to the same extent, you have educational facilities which you have not got anywhere else in Malaysia, and the possibility, if our rate of growth is maintained, of free secondary education for everybody - not just for Malays - by the third year, by any Government which comes into office. The money is there, the expansion is there; and the right to social welfare benefits - unemployment benefits. These are privileges accorded only to Singapore citizens of Malaysia, not to Malaysian citizens who are not Singapore citizens. As against that, of course, there are the prohibitions that we cannot vote in the Federation nor can they vote here. I was attracted, Mr Speaker, by an argument put forward at the Prime Ministers' Conference in September last year, and whilst we all make our bargaining positions as strong as possible, we have at the same time to look at the future where our destinies converge. And one Prime Minister - a very able speaker - said he was against Britain joining the Common Market. He was from one of those European dominions. He said that if Britain joined Europe then it was sheer humbug to say - well, he did not actually use the word "humbug", but he said it would be a pure pretence to say that it would not really become slowly part of the political structure and eventually the military structure of Europe. Its already military structure had become an economic and political union. He said in his experience -he has got experience of federal constitutions and as a student of history - "A federation goes one of two ways: either the force is centrifugal or centripetal. In other words, either the bits and pieces break up or they come closer and closer together. I cannot envisage Malaysia splitting up. It must come closer and closer together. It must be centripetal. Nevertheless we should have every bargaining counter. Charity is a desirable characteristic but, in these circumstances, it is a luxury for us. We like to be generous to the rest of Malaysia and you will see from the exchange of letters that we offered two per cent of our national taxes, both Income Tax and Excise, as a component part of the prosperity index for Common Market. It is not an amount to be despised - two per cent, three per cent - it is $6,000,000 now; it will grow to $12,000,000 in five years' time and $20,000,000 in ten years' time. In the Constitution is written out, in so far as human ingenuity can provide in legal documents, all the safeguards and all the bargaining counters. We had quite an ingenious team on our side, Mr Speaker, Sir, with sharp intellects. We had the smallest team in London, two Ministers, against the Federation's six: even Sarawak came with a delegation of seven. Seven chaps, seven honourable gentlemen signed the document. North Borneo - six. But there were only two of us. And our officials were only five, plus my personal secretary who acted as secretary and stenographer. But I would say there was no point, not even half a point, which we unwittingly threw away. If we gave away a point, it was because there was some concession, some generosity of approach on the other side. I would not like to pretend that it has been otherwise. It would be dishonest because the letters clearly show, and I am afraid the attitude of certain gentlemen in Kuala Lumpur in high places continues to show, a degree of aloofness and lack of understanding of our problems. You cannot govern Singapore on the basis that it is a small State and that you can squat on it. This is the vital heart of a throbbing region, a region in the midst of flux and turmoil and revolution. This is the centre - a big market-place, and now with the Common Market, the industrial base. Nothing can take away our natural harbour, our airport, the Jurong complex. I do not know if Members have read hard-headed businessmen's appraisal of Singapore after Malaysia. Share prices, land prices, land values bear it out. The Member for Farrer Park will know. There is no gainsaying this. And we are prepared to share all this with Malaysia provided gradually over the years, as we throw more into the common pool, so our voice in national matters must increase. That is, the gradual process. On certain matters, like education, it will be difficult - for 50 years, maybe even more - to quite fit in with the Federation pattern or, for that matters, with the Borneo pattern. It is one of those things that have happened in history. The British made a decision in 1945 to separate us without knowing the immeasurable consequences of that act which led to a whole series of events which culminated in riots, strikes, civil disobedience, and only ended - I mean, really we turned the tide on education when the boycott failed. Sometime before that we convinced the Chinese that nobody was going to kill Chinese education, let alone this Government. The Member for Queenstown has a son in an English school, whilst the Parliamentary Secretary for Education has his children in a Chinese school. How could it be? There is no answer to that. There can be none. And so I say, far from being ashamed of being a Singapore citizen, it is a prize to be gained in Malaysia, one which we will not lightly give away. Sir, on the financial arrangements, I want to make three points. First, about the entrep�t trade. There will be a lot more talk of selling away the birth-right of Singapore and all the rest of it, particularly from the Member for Anson - he has already shot that line; it will be difficult for him to retract. Apart from eight competent expert minds from the World Bank, having been brought to bear on the matter, I would like to add this: that our own team in the Economic Development Board - for we do not embark on something on the basis of a guess, a leap into the dark. That is not the way we do things. It has been carefully worked out. Two-thirds of our entrep�t trade is on primary products, like rubber, copra, pepper, coffee. And the principal markets for these products lie outside Malaysia. If Members will look at the exchange of documents, there is one signed by the Finance Minister of the Federation. It is on the fourth page - letter from the Finance Minister. The third letter. "Common Market." `The Federal Government undertakes not to impose export duties in Singapore in respect of primary products, other than minerals including oil produced in Singapore.' In other words, on our present statistics. two-thirds of our entrep�t trade is unaffected - rubber, copra, pepper, coffee. They will go on as usual. No need for bonded warehousing and the rest of it. Bonded warehousing comes in in the case of tyres, by way of example, if and when tyres are manufactured. Tyres are now n1anufactured in Kuala Lumpur. I have not the slightest doubt that Dunlops will apply for protection in the Common Market. Sir, this is another point that I would like to make. We may be one-fourteenth of Malaysia, but we have 40 per cent of the purchasing power of the total as against 60 per cent in Malaya. Purchasing power. Any advertiser of consumer goods can confirm that. It is borne out by the statistics, the sales - radio sets, transistors, nearly 100 per cent of T.V., apart from Johore not paying for licences hut getting free entertainment from Singapore. I would say we have a strong bargaining position, and we intend to exercise it. Let us say tyres are included. Once a commodity is protected, then it can be manufactured anywhere in Malaysia. The protection is not for a particular factory, but for a particular commodity, and `or that reason Bridgestone is opening up in Jurong. That is as it should be. If, in fact, the proximity of rubber estates to Dunlop factory makes a difference in cost as against taking rubber from South Johore to Jurong, then Dunlops will beat Bridgestone. If it is not, then in the end Bridgestone will sell probably in South Malaya. Singapore and Borneo, because it is cheaper to export tyres from here to Borneo than from Kuala Lumpur by rail - Klang to Kuala Lumpur, down to Singapore by ship, handling charges, freight charges, and so on. This is a point worth remembering. Next, Customs, Excise and Income Tax will remain State Departments. In other words, we ourselves can ensure that there will be as little inconvenience as possible caused to the commercial community. This is covered in Article 5 of Annex G. Sir, if one will look at the financial arrangements, one will see In the ultimatum at page 61 - I do not think it was an ultimatum, Mr Speaker. Sir; it was somebody in the Finance Ministry who lost his temper and decided to write a tough letter, requesting a reply within 48 hours - "Powers to be reserved to the Federal Government: The power to prohibit imports and exports of any class of goods;". Sir, we could not agree to that because it means putting our lifeblood, our trade, into the hands of a Federal Finance Minister who may not be as sensitive to Singapore economy as we are. For instance, they banned South African goods. I do not approve of South Africa and apartheid. But it is very difficult when a ship comes in - you are a big port - and, say, part of the cargo is South African and so you will not work the cargo, for political reasons, to show sympathy for the struggle of the African people. That has been done in the Federation. We share that sympathy, but we are sufficiently aware of the realities, the practical difficulties, n which it will involve us. Therefore, we are not a party to that. That means we will go on as we are. That is a point worth remembering, Mr Speaker, Sir. Also Chinese textiles have been banned in the Federation for various reasons. I do not think we want to get committed to these policies. We are a big trading area. We trade in the world's goods, with the rest of the world. And that way, is the best way for all of us. And now this power cannot be exercised. If one were to look at Annex G, Members will see that it is only with the consent of the Singapore Government that this power can be exercised. So when the Member for Cairnhill says it is all bogus, he must have been unaware of these difficulties. He is probably either not in the inner conclave of the Alliance in Kuala Lumpur, or perhaps he was just shooting an election line. There were serious differences which - very fortunately patient, prolonged - sometimes tortuous, sometimes bitter - but always determined negotiations - provided a conclusion in the end, a successful solution. Then the other point is this: unlike the Federation, the law on foreign banks - owned by foreign nations - will not apply. Banking is concurrent. Prohibition in the Federation on the Bank of Indonesia, Bank Negara, and the Bank of China - will not apply in Singapore. We will continue as we are. Sir, I would like to take this opportunity at this last sitting of the Assembly, with these powers - as I have said, when we meet again, I will have discharged my responsibilities, I hope, completely and successfully, without a blot on my copybook. No riots, no revolution, no arson. 30 days to go - actually 29 because the 31st August is no longer our responsibility, but nevertheless we will always do our best to ensure - and the Singapore Government has valuable experience in these matters - to give advice if it is sought by the Minister responsible in the Federation. We would not like to shirk our responsibilities because if through insensitivity or other reasons some wrong policy were instituted, then we in Singapore and Malaysia would all suffer. I would like to compare the end of our first term of office with that of the last Government led by the Member for Anson and the Member for Cairnhill. I hear the Member for Cairnhill is raring for blood, coming in for the kill, finishing off the P.A.P. Government. Sir, whether he does or whether he does not, whether we are returned in the next elections to be held sometime before the end of the year, even though we have the right to go on till March next year, I give an undertaking that we will have elections before that, as I think the Member for Cairnhill wants it. That was one of the reasons why he postponed the 15 seats in order that there will be accommodation made, so there will be a better chance for the Alliance. My colleagues and I have been accused of arrogance, ineptitude, stupidities. Sir, whatever our faults, we leave the country at the end of our first term of office in a healthier state than we came into office. The last days of the last Government was a pathetic sight. I have read of the last days of Nanking before the Kuomintang fled - papers strewn on the office floor, Ministers packing away gold bars, secretaries packing away valuable furniture to fly out to Canton, then to Taiwan, and there was an atmosphere of decay. This was a newspaperman's account of what took place in Nanking. And in the last year, particularly the last few months, that was the state of the country and the Government and the officers. Morale had collapsed. It was a Government that was only interested in its own survival. When we took over, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had no office; no provision had been made for an office. That is a fact. It was agreed already before the Chief Minister went out of office that he would vacate his office and give it hack to the Assembly, and I took office without an office having been prepared. The then Chief Minister never expected to be returned; so he did not bother about it. Why worry about the stationery and the office? But I say, Sir, whoever takes over from us, we will give a full inventory. Yes, we are proud men, because we are proud to do the decent thing by the country. We have brought it to security and we have brought it into harbour. Whatever happens, the ship is safe and sound, and the Members on the other side, particularly the three Members in U.M.N.O., know that. Whoever assumes office after the elections will find $400 million in the kitty which was not there, will find development plans which will carry on: it has a momentum that will carry on into the first three years of the next Government. The United Nations team on urban re-development is enthusiastic over our prospects - the finances, the revenue and the possibilities of rebuilding. Plans are afoot to knock down Outram Prison in spite of the difficulties about the Pulau Senang riots; and they will proceed. We came in and found things at a standstill. The former Financial Secretary was an expatriate. He had decided that the time had come for him to retire and he left. There were no plans in hand for anything: there was very little money left in the kitty either. Amongst other things, if ever, if it is the will of the people, so be it; let some other government take over if it can do better; but it will find every office in every Ministry ticking. In my Ministry, Sir, it will find that there are two typists who know how to do Japanese flower arrangements - a very important factor. It shows that somebody cares. Flowers are being grown in the Botanic Gardens; a car comes down on its way to pick me to office and picks up the flowers. Somebody in the office gets a $10 allowance to put the flowers and arrange them nicely.

Oh, I did not know about it.

Yes, the Finance Minister does not know it, Sir,It is out of the miscellaneous - An hon. Member: What about the aquarium?

And an aquarium.

Yes, yes, an aquarium.

Very good. It is not mine, Mr Speaker, Sir. It belongs to Singapore. And I am proud that whoever takes over from me has an aquarium where you cannot see the corner. That is true. We have one of the best aquariums in this part of the world and - I do not know what you call a man who looks after it, who is a specialist in aquariums.

An aquarist.

An aquarist? I do not know. I have to look up the dictionary. He has done what is called a panoramic tank. At a certain angle, a parabolic curve is so arranged that no fish can hide behind a corner, and yet you do not see the corner. You have never had the privilege of having seen them -

Order. I suppose that does relate to the Malaysia Agreement!

That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is part and parcel of whoever runs Singapore under the new Constitution. He will inherit that -something that ticks. We have been asked, and I, in particular, have been asked, what is my personal ambition? I have twice answered this question in the last few days, and I was intrigued to see the Member for Choa Chu Kang trying to cause trouble with the Tunku. He is very good in this, Mr Speaker, Sir,It is all set out: The Three Kingdoms is a very good book to read - over 1,000 tales in which every human situation imaginable and conceivable is recited and recorded. Treachery, cowardice, bravery, love, hatred, trickery, roguery, rascality, are recounted in the analects - over 1,000 of them - and this comes under "How to cause trouble among people who are against you, cause them to fight each other." Somebody asked me - I cannot remember now - whether I would be the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are realistic enough to acknowledge that in the foreseeable future there can be no P.A.P. Prime Minister of Malaysia. The Member for Choa Chu Kang still wants to try. They say among the P.A.P. members, the cadres, when they meet, "Ah, do not worry; in 10 or 15 years' time the Tunku will be out. I will take over. I will be the Prime Minister of Malaysia." Sir, I do not know about what will happen in 10 or 15 years' time. I hope we will be a united people and a still prosperous and developing society, and I would be ashamed of myself if I did not make a contribution in that society. I would say that he is a fool who believes that he can govern Ma1aysia without the support of the Malays. I can envisage the P.A.P. in a Government of Malaysia at some date in the future working in conjunction with Malay leaders, but I cannot imagine a Singapore P.A.P. spreading out only into the towns and capturing the majority of seats and controlling the destiny of Malaysia. That is not possible, and I will explain why, Mr Speaker, Sir. Whatever the Tunku may be to the Communists - although he is, in many ways, straightforward and he prefers the simple approach - he is a realist and understands the mechanics of power. That is why when he met my two other colleagues and we discussed the White Paper, he said, "Look, I want the Police, Army and "Prisons." [Interruption] This is not a laughing matter. Mr Speaker, Sir. He understands the mechanics of power and, brought up in the shadow of the throne of Kedah, he knows how to govern, which was something the Member for Anson never knew. The Member was chased from pillar to post; he changed his mind every five seconds. When the Tunku says, "No", it will take a long time to get him to say, "Yes", as it took us. In 1955, we wanted merger; we waited until 1963 before we got merger. He meant "No" for a very long time. It was only because of the inevitability of it, the awful alternative of no merger leading to what he himself said North versus South, that we got merger by consent: otherwise we would have merger by force; it must be. So we have an army and the Police, and what is more an Administration. In Singapore, it will be a completely free for all administration. But we must be realistic enough to realise that no Malayan Government can ever carry its people, if it abandons anywhere in the immediate future a four to one policy on the key jobs. In other words, even if by a fluke, by some chance, a wrong distribution of seats, one Party won the majority of seats in the Parliament, do they think they will govern the country? The Administration is solid; the Army is solid, the Police is solid. There is the Agong - symbol of the monarch. It has happened the whole world over, Mr Speaker, Sir. Ayub Khan moved in from Field Marshal; he was General, then he became Field Marshal, and he is now President. General Ne Win, President. Nasser, now President, was a colonel: somewhere in some military college there may be a young Nasser. But I hope that that is not the future of Malaysia. I say it will be the stupidity of the Chinese Communists in Malaya who will make that happen, if ever it happens. If we have our way, we will bring the people together more by exhortation and example than by force, because force is not possible in this situation, by persuasion, example, exhortation and co-operation, and that is what we are out to do. At the same time, we understand our strength. No Party in Malaysia after the first 10 years when a new generation grows up and all are Malaysian citizens - not now, now half are immigrants who do not have citizenship in Malaya, and some in Borneo too have not got citizenship; but nearly all in Singapore have - in 10 years' time the proportion, the distribution is such, the racial components are such that no Party can govern by relying on only one race. The Chinese cannot govern just by Chinese votes. And I say it is so with the Malays and with the Indians. There are about 41 per cent Chinese, 44 per cent Malays, Dyaks, Dusuns and Muruts. 10 per cent Indians and so on. Therefore, there must be a partnership, or we will perish. We will slit each other's throats. This is cold logic. If there is to be a partnership, it must be on the basis of equality. I cannot just find a Malay stooge and dub him as a Malay leader and say, Here you are, I appoint you Prime Minister." I then shake him by the hand and create him as a Malay leader. This is not possible. And vice versa, Mr Speaker, Sir,In other words, you cannot have a tame Chinaman and say he represents the Chinese and shake him by the hand and say, "Here you are, your leader." That is not the way the Chinese are - just like the Malays. By definition, a leader means he leads; he fights for the nation and for the section of the community that he represents. In my case, it has been my privilege to tight for the just rights of Singapore in Malaysia. Therefore, we have a role to play in Malaysia, not to take over, hut to co-operate. We understand the mechanics of power too. We are also sufficiently acquainted with the respective power positions and the ploy of men in power. As long as the Tunku is there, he will he the leader of Malaysia, and to everybody's advantage, because whatever one can say of him, he is not a communalist, which is a very great thing in this country. If he were, and he tried to stymie or obstruct the activities of four million Chinese in Malaysia out of ten million, then he would go down the drain, just like a few other countries have. Riots took place recently in some countries. They burned Chinese lorries and shops; now they cannot get the vegetables from the country to the town; the price of vegetables has gone up in the town, and the chaps in the country have suffered because they cannot sell the vegetables. There is a great deal to keep the people together. Whoever follows him must find like-minded persons to work with. In the long run, the next generation will be brought up in the same schools and under the same conditions. Then race will cease to matter as we speak one common language; we begin to feel one. It may not be in my lifetime, but I hope it will be in the one that follows me. But in my lifetime and that of my colleagues, whatever happens, we are not running away from here. We have no gold mines stashed away, or bullion stacked into suitcases ready to climb into an aeroplane. If the country perishes, so will we. But what we are determined to see is that it does not perish, either through wickedness by those who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis, or through stupidity and greed, like some who try to loot and no doubt will try to loot Singapore. There are lots of pickings in Singapore. I am told that an estimate of three million lottery tickets can be sold every month. Just think of it, Mr Speaker, Sir! I mean you and I tied to our emoluments on the vote and here they can print lottery tickets. Through printing the tickets, you make money. They estimate they can sell three million tickets in Singapore alone; they have been watching the Turf Club. Through selling tickets, you make money. When chaps win prizes, they feel happy; they give you a percentage; so definitely all round, you win. There are other things too which they tried to convert and put into the centre: licences - the lifeblood of Singapore - free trade, tenders and they did not get it. They tried to. They sent a document, Mr Speaker, Sir. They will not get it. And I say the people of Singapore will have the sense to reject them. If they choose to elect a Government that will do these things, then I say we have all lost because that is the first step towards chaos, anarchy, a military dictatorship followed by the Communists when all breaks down. It is our duty to keep it that way. In other words, what my colleague said on Sunday when we went to Siglap together, there are two things required of anyone who wants to inherit the right to spend this $400 million stashed away for the country to carry out the building plans, the industrial projects in Jurong, nearly completed, harbour, rail road, water and power. Absolute and utter integrity that can stand the closest scrutiny at any time., And the other is determination to see that right is done. I do not know whether this same Assembly will meet again. Mr Speaker, Sir,I am not in a position to tell my opponents these things, but I hope in the next Assembly we will find a Government worthy of an industrious and able people. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for over three hours we have been listening to the usual blustering, humbug and posturing of a man on his way out, [Interruption] of a man going down but still wanting to put up a bold front, telling of his brilliance, how he calculates this thing, how clever he is and how he anticipates making every move over the chess-board. For more than half an hour, he was praising and defending the British colonial Government, telling us how Malaysia is not neo-colonialist. He knows how to talk. He talks about the electronic machine, the electronic computer. Yes, he talks of his own brilliance, forgetting all the time that the British colonial Government with hundreds of years' experience behind them is the real electronic computer in the whole business of Malaysia. The Prime Minister even went so far as to say that he had the British by the throat or by the neck. I remember reading in the newspapers that he said he almost got Mr Sandys down on his bended knees, or something to that effect. Yet what happened? Getting the British to go down on their bended knees, and yet he gives $150 million away! How does he work it out? This is a new type of logic, P.A.P. logic, to which we are now getting quite used to. He talks of his calculations, but all the time he forgets that it is British, the master mind, that is really directing operations behind the scenes. If only he will look at himself in the mirror, he will realise that he was merely being pushed around by the British without himself knowing it. No wonder he pays tribute to the British, because he knows in actual fact that it is the British who are behind the whole scheme. But the British have been doing things so very subtly that the P.A.P. stooges are, in fact, more eager promoting Malaysia than the British themselves. Of course, the P.A.P., thinking only of their own selfish selves, began to link their own personal fortunes with the success or failure of Malaysia. In this Assembly, Sir, the P.A.P. always put up a bold front when they are only 25 -

Thirty-eight.

The Prime Minister still talks as if he is the master of the whole situation. But I think he regrets not having been present the other night, and I am sure he must have had some hot words with his Deputy who came out boldly to say that elections would be held before the end of the year, because we see in the newspapers that the Prime Minister, during his constituency tours, has been trying to condition the minds of the people to the fact that after all elections might be in March. Why can they not say categorically, since the Deputy Prime Minister, as Leader of the House, has said in this very House, that general elections will be held before the end of the year?

On a point of clarification. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will remember, I said that general elections would be held after Malaysia.

Yes, Sir, after Malaysia, but also before the end of the year. Of course, that is the whole idea. They want to put up a bold front but they also want to cling to power. They are afraid. Their power is like ivy now; they cannot cling to it any more; it is slippery. Their days are numbered. You can see their faces, all longish. [Interruption]

Order. It is very difficult for me to ask the Government Benches to keep quiet if the Member for Queenstown excites their revelry or laughter.

Well, we in the Barisan Sosialis have been exciting them all the time. They cannot see us having the mass support. When the Prime Minister goes round and shouts merdeka, two or three hands go up. Even nowadays on television, whenever the Prime Minister shouts merdeka, they make sure that the public will not see the two or three hands going up. They are afraid. The Prime Minister was telling us about "Viva il Papa".

What? I do not know what he is saying. [Interruption]

Order.

I do not know what that is.

Order. Perhaps the Member for Queenstown could now address all his remarks to the Speaker and the Speaker promises not to laugh.

And today the Prime Minister has admitted that in spite of the rigorous schooling and rigorous tutoring, somehow or other all the Work Brigade boys and some from the community centres do not as promptly put up their hands when the Prime Minister shouts Merdeka. Of course, everybody knows that the Prime Minister, when he speaks in any of these rallies, makes sure that there is already a crowd, though that crowd is there not to listen to him but to see a show. Either there is a variety show or a wayang, and in between scenes Lee Kuan Yew comes out to perform. That is what actually happens. The people just cannot help but listen to him under those circumstances, not that they really want to listen to him. In the Prime Minister's posturing - he said he did not know how to bluff and even said that he was astounded when the proposal came from whoever it was that they should cough out $150 million, he even said he bit his lip. Well, I do not know. If he had really bitten his lip, I am a doctor. But what did he do? Just biting his lips. Did he fight back? Did he roll up his sleeves and say, "Come on."? No, Sir, he sat in his room eating sandwiches.

Order. Earlier on the Member for Queenstown started off by saying the Prime Minister was posturing. May I suggest that he is now posturing before this Assembly?

Anyway, Sir, while he talks of biting his lips, being astounded, he was also merely taking sandwiches, taking whisky. He tells us all this and then he ultimately surrendered. Why? He quotes Dr Faust, but I think he quoted wrongly. He should have quoted Machiavelli, the Prince. The Minister for Finance is very good at quoting the Prince. He recommended that book to quite a number of people, and I also have read it. I am daily learning of how the P.A.P. always puts on a bold front, stuff themselves with cotton wool -

Where?

- wherever it may be. You see, Sir, the P.A.P. today is in a very difficult position. In 1959 because of their good posturing, because they managed to shout anti-colonial slogans, they had the support of the masses. After they had climbed into power they started to play the game of tight-rope walking by playing on their line of so-called indispensability. They know they had the support of the masses and they wanted to tell the Left, "Look boys, I am the only chap who can prevent you from being napped and therefore you jolly well help me." But that type of bluff did not carry weight. The P.A.P. was exposed and the support has been taken away from them. They are every day being exposed and now they are completely naked in every way. Today knowing that they do not have' the support of the Left, they still want to walk along a tight rope. How? This time, instead of playing on the Left, they play on the British. They tell the British "Look, the P.A.P. Ministers are the only people who can look after the Communists." They tell the whole world they are better fighters against the Communists then the ex-S.P.A. Government. They say that if the British want to contain the Communists, they must keep the P.A.P. in power. And knowing that the Federation Government and the British have this phobia, they keep playing this phobia on their minds. Every time they bring out this bogey. Anything that they have done badly or wrongly, they put the blame on the Communists. If they want to take some drastic action against their political opponents, again they label them as Communists. Under those circumstances, Sir, the British will not be able not to support them. They say, "Well, since you are going against the Communists, we will therefore give you a chance to carry on." The P.A.P., realising all this, can therefore afford to act tough. Because they have the British behind them, they therefore dare to take tough action. If they did not have the British behind them, they would have crumpled up. They would not dare do a thing. See what is happening to this lands affair. The Prime Minister says it is a wonderful gain and a prize for the people of Singapore. Is that true? The letters reveal that that is not the case. I will come to that later on in my speech. The whole policy of the P.A.P. has been based on the calculation - no - miscalculation of the fact that they are indispensable. They always play one force against another and thereby hope to keep themselves in office and enjoy all the facilities that go with that office. Sir, there is this bit about Malaysia not being neo-colonialism. I will touch more on that a little later, but all of us know that Article 6 in the Malaysia Agreement is the essence of Malaysia. If there was no Article 6, there would be no Malaysia. Malaysia after all is only the political aspect of the British Far East Unified Command which covers exactly the same five areas in Malaysia. If they say that it is not neo-colonialism, all they have to do is to ask the British to walk out. They will then see whether or not there is Malaysia. The British will not only fight back but will also help crush and knock the P.A.P. out. Realising this, of course, the P.A.P. wants to play the game for the British. Incidentally, even the United States is now coming out openly in support of Malaysia and has even threatened, as I see in the papers, to withdraw financial aid to Indonesia if Indonesia does not stop the confrontation against Malaysia. Sir, the P.A.P. always likes to use the Communist bogey to frighten the people. They know that we in the Barisan Sosialis are their main opponents. They hope by linking and identifying the Barisan Sosialis with the Communists, they can use that as an excuse to knock out the Barisan Sosialis. But as the Prime Minister himself too realises, they cannot knock out the Barisan Sosialis. They may gaol some of us, because today they have State power in their hands, but they will not be able to take away the real strength of the Barisan Sosialis, because we are a Party, unlike the P.A.P., that is really rooted in the masses. Ask the P.A.P. to hold a rally anywhere and we hold a rally anywhere. We do not have to hire buses to cart people there. The people will come and listen to us. If the P.A.P. were to hold a similar rally, they would not be able to have a couple of hundred people unless they gave instructions and specific directions to the Work Brigade boys to be there waiting to give a clap whenever the Prime Minister appeared. The Prime Minister keeps on talking about open confrontation. I do not know what he means by open confrontation. Today Indonesia is also having open confrontation. An hon. Member: You support it?

While, on the one hand, they talk of open confrontation, on the other hand, they deny us a chance to confront them. Now, as you know, we have asked for permits to hold rallies on three Sundays and each time the permits have been refused. Why are they afraid? If they want open confrontation, why do they have to guillotine debates for example? Why do they not really confront? Talking of the referendum, it is clear proof that they dare not have open confrontation with us. If they really want to depend on the open argument to convince people, they do not have to arrest their political opponents. All this clearly proves that although the P.A.P. talk of open confrontation, they themselves are very much afraid of it. They talk of being buried by history. Yes, it will not be very long before they will be buried. Their days are numbered. The writing is on the wall. An hon. Member: Then start counting!

The whole strategy of the P.A.P. in all that they have been doing for the last couple of years consists in just fighting for survival. Whenever any straw appears, they just grasp at the straw and hope that this straw will keep them afloat. And therefore they use all their ingenuity and devote all their energy towards the grasping at straws. The Prime Minister has admitted that the referendum counting was done in such a way as to allow the P.A.P. to know their strength in particular division. We mentioned this many, many times before. Now, we hear them openly admitting that what we said is true. Similarly on the Federal elections. We also pointed out that the whole idea behind the Federal elections was to allow the P.A.P. to find safe seats. We have an open admission now from the Prime Minister about this fact. They call it the controlled experiment. Of course, it would be very well controlled by the P.A.P. and I think that is why perhaps the other Members of the Opposition are also opposed to this type of legal rigging of elections. Today, I am very glad that the Prime Minister has admitted very, very many things that we had said in 1961. We had said, for example, that he had to go up and persuade the Tunku, and he went up to tell the Tunku stories. He has also confirmed that it is the P.A.P. that offered civil aviation, telecoms and all things, confirming in every detail of what we said about the sell-out of the P.A.P. - a sell-out of the interests of the people of Singapore by the P.A.P. At that time we pointed out that the P.A.P. wanted this merger as a diversion, in order to divert the attention of the people from the P.A.P.'s incompetence and moral bankruptcy. Now realising that the British electronic computer is at work, the P.A.P. should forget all talk of their own brilliance, of their own cleverness, and consult the people of Singapore in whatever they do. Sir, the present Malaysia Agreement is the direct result of P.A.P. haughtiness and arrogance in the way they go about things. They fail to realise that although the British did not openly suggest the Malaysia Plan, the British had in fact arranged things in such a way that it is the P.A.P. that had to go along peddling selling the plan all over the world, helping to promote British interests. I mentioned a little while back that Article V1 is the essence of the whole Malaysia Agreement. This Article VI also explains how the people of Singapore will be asked to pay a lot of money towards armed expansion and towards defence, not of the people of the five regions but of British vested interests in the region. They do not shout anti-colonial slogans nowadays. In fact, the Prime Minister equates the importance of Singapore, so far as the people of Singapore are concerned, to the importance of the base. The base is important only to the British. But to the Prime Minister, that is the most important aspect of Singapore. Only the other day the Deputy Prime Minister said that the main function of the Singapore Airport is to serve the British as a jumping-board to suppress the national liberation movement in Brunei. In the few hours of talking by the Prime Minister he, in fact said very little. All his talking was directed at propaganda to help defend his weak position. In fact, I remember when the Prime Minister came back from London he sounded very apologetic in his T.V. speech. He just could not stand up to the occasion which was prepared for him by the P.A.P. propaganda machinery in Singapore. They wanted to bill him as a hero, but he knew that he was not a hero, and therefore in everything that he said on that day he sounded very poor. He could not put his points across. These are the few preliminary remarks which I want to make before I go into my main speech. But before I really go on, Sir, I wish to protest at the way in which the P.A.P. Government has treated this whole debate. The Prime Minister offered his apologies to the House yesterday, but I do not think that was any consolation for us who have to debate this very important motion. As the Prime Minister himself has admitted, the motion before the House is a very important one. It refers to documents which run into hundreds of pages. If we are to debate these documents fully, it is only right and proper that we in the Opposition be given adequate time to study them. Then we would be the better able to contribute our hit towards the debate. The subject material for debate today conies from three official papers issued by the Government. Two of these documents were made available to us only on the late evening of Friday, 26th July, 1963. I received Misc. Papers 4 and 5 of 1963 at home well past 9.30 p.m. that night. Since then I have managed to run through these two papers. But the third one, the Malaysia Agreement, which runs into 232 pages, was only sent to Opposition Members on Sunday afternoon, 27th July, 1963. I received my copy at home at 12.35 p.m. on Sunday. Under those circumstances, Sir, there is not enough time for us to run through these bulky documents. In fact, there is no time to do anything else other than to merely read through them. This late delivery of the important documents to us is, of course, meant to delay us or deny us the time and the opportunity to study them carefully and minutely. I wish to protest and say that this is a highly irresponsible way of doing things. The adjournment of the debate to today does allow us in the Opposition more time to study these important documents, but this is done not because the P.A.P. has any consideration for us in the Opposition. It is my guess, Sir, that because of the late hours the Prime Minister keeps and the frantic electioneering campaign he is now conducting, in his tours, he himself has not found time to prepare his own speech in this House. So the postponement yesterday was not to allow us time to read the documents but to allow himself time to prepare what he wanted to say. He could very easily have got the documents ready for us many days before Sunday. The London Agreement was signed on the 9th of July. It is how the 30th. The documents could have been made available to us long, long ago. But, of course, that did not suit the Government. So the documents were handed to us late and it was in fact meant to deny us, the Opposition, a chance to study them carefully. Our position is very clear. Whatever it is we fight back. We shall always do our best under all circumstances - whether it be one day, two days or three days in which to debate. And we shall do everything possible to expose the P.A.P. and show the dangers to the people of Singapore in the present sell-out Malaysia Agreement. Sir, before I say anything further. I might also say a few words about the Press in. Singapore. We know the local Press is under heavy pressure from the P.A.P. Government. But the Press has also its responsibility to the general public. This is an important debate before the House. We understand the papers have to give a lot of space to the P.A.P. documents and to what the Ministers have to say, but the views of the Opposition are just as important and should therefore be given adequate coverage in the newspapers. This does not mean that we are asking publicity for ourselves, but in view of the importance of this debate, the newspapers, if they still want to claim that they are independent newspapers, must shoulder their responsibility and place all the facts and all aspects of the issue at stake before the people. It is only when all the facts and aspects of the issue have been placed before the people that they will be able to decide for themselves on the matter. The people have a right to have all the facts placed before them. I ask the newspapers not to forget their duty and responsibility to the general public. This is especially so today when the P.A.P. is doing its best to shut out Opposition news and to deny to the Opposition the basic rights of assembly and free speech as well as the right and opportunity to have direct contact with the masses in mass rallies. The P.A.P. fears exposure. It talks of open confrontation but is scared stiff to have it. Anyway, the time is not too distant when the P.A.P. will be no more. Sir, in these four years of P.A.P. rule - 7.02 p.m.

Order. A business motion.

Resolved, "That the proceedings on item I on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. I until twelve midnight." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]

Debate resumed.

I was saying. Sir, in the four years of P.A.P. rule you, as well as the staff of this Assembly, have seen the abuse of parliamentary -

Order. The Member for Queenstown must not by any means whatsoever involve the Speaker or the staff in this debate or any other debate.

I have no intention of doing so, Sir. This is only in passing.

I cannot accept the statement just made. That is why I say, leave out the staff, leave out the Speaker.

Outside this Assembly, Sir, the people have seen the direct effects of the death of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. There is fear of P.A.P. repression and ruthlessness all over the island. There is fear of the secret police and P.A.P. informers. Singapore, in fact, is a police State. But very soon all of us will be relieved of this P.A.P. arrogance, haughtiness and over-hearing attitude. The P.A.P. recently mobilised the whole of the Government machinery and the State of Singapore into giving the Prime Minister a hero's reception on his return from London. P.A.P. branches were ordered to scrap all available men for an airport reception. But as usual the hulk of the reception and audience for the Prime Minister came not from the masses but from the Work Brigade boys and from the community centres. School children were ordered to line the route as in all the constituency tours of the Prime Minister. And because there was a delay in the plane's arrival on that day, the school children had to stand waiting by the roadside for three hours. All in order to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to deceive the outside world with his so-called popularity. I received a letter the other day, Sir, from a school child in a school in Siglap and he complained that he was asked, in fact directed, to stand at a certain place and to wave his flag when the Prime Minister come along on Sunday and he asked that such fact be made known to the public in Singapore. This is only one example. Sir,I do not intend to waste the time of the House quoting letters and complaints from people all the time, all over the place. Of course, Sir, this billing of the Prime Minister as the star of this P.A.P. Gilbert and Sullivan opera was meant to cover up the public resentment against the P.A.P. sell-out in London, and as part of a huge P.A.P. conspiracy to turn things upside down and black into white, a traitor of Singapore was crowned the champion of the interest of the people of Singapore. Indeed, Sir, it would be difficult to find a more ridiculous and absurd situation in P.A.P. topsy-turvy land. Sir, the Prime Minister has talked a lot about citizenship. He has said that he is proud of Singapore citizenship. I agree with that statement. But very unfortunately he has turned the good first-class Singapore citizenship into an inferior second-class citizenship. Since 1961, Sir, we have pointed out, both inside and outside this Assembly, the sell-out arrangements in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. The White Paper does not give us genuine Federation citizenship. Neither does it give the people of Malaya, that is, Singapore and the Federation, a common political life. Singapore citizens will become second-class citizen. In an effort to deceive the people, the name "Federation national" was changed into "Malaysia citizenship (Singapore)". But as we have pointed out, this is only a change in nomenclature. There is no change in content. The Singapore citizen is politically confined to Singapore. The Malaysian citizenship (Singapore) is good only for the island of Singapore. Whereas Malaysian citizens from Sarawak and Sabah will be able to go to the Federation to vote and stand for election, the Malaysian citizen (Singapore) will still not be able to go to the Federation to vote or stand for election. This at once, Sir, shows the difference between the citizenship of Singapore and the citizenship of the Borneo territories. The Prime Minister says that the only value of Singapore citizenship lies in its right to have housing and educational facilities which are not given to citizens in other parts of Malaysia. This is a very irresponsible way of talking about citizenship. It only shows how far the Prime Minister has degenerated in his political bankruptcy. There again, Singapore does not have anything like proportional representation. With a population of 1.7 million, Singapore will get only 15 seats, whereas Sarawak with a population one-half that of Singapore will get 24 seats, and Sabah with a population only one-quarter that of Singapore will get 16 seats. We have pointed out that with the inadequate representations in the Central Parliament, Singapore will not be able to safeguard its vital interests, especially when the Federation will have overall financial control over Singapore, and there was no talk at that time in 1961, and subsequently too, even of a common market. The whole of the White Paper, therefore, is completely to the disadvantage of Singapore. All one sided as admitted by the Prime Minister himself only three months ago. All this talk of autonomy in labour and education becomes nonsense when control of internal security will allow the Federation to interfere in the running of these two departments in Singapore as and when the Federation politicians feel so inclined. The White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 was passed in the Legislative Assembly after a walk-out of the Barisan Sosialis, the United People's Party and the Workers' Party Assemblymen. This White Paper was subsequently put to the people in a undemocratic and dishonest referendum. Through the use of threats and intimidation the P.A.P. coerced the people into voting for this White Paper. The P.A.P. has always claimed that since the White Paper had been passed in the Legislative Assembly and later voted for in the sham referendum, so it represents the will of the people. We, on the contrary, have always maintained that the P.A.P. referendum never did and never could reflect the will and desire of the people freely expressed. But since the P.A.P. always prefer to stick to the so-called legality of that matter and say that the White Paper has the support of the people because it has been passed in the Legislative Assembly and has been "approved" by the people in the sham referendum, let us now examine the London Agreement on this basis and see how far the Malaysian terms, or P.A.P. merger terms, signed in London are at variance with the White Paper that has been passed in the Legislative Assembly and "approved" by the people in the sham referendum. The P.A.P. has repeatedly emphasised in its bold, tough posturing that, in the financial talks at one stage, everything has already been agreed to in the White Paper and in the exchange of letters between him and the Prime Minister of the Federation. "If there was anything to be altered in the terms of merger, it would have to be renegotiated, redebated and reendorsed." That was what the Prime Minister himself said not so very long ago. Let us first see what the Malaysian citizenship (Singapore) means in this Malaysia Agreement signed in London on 9th July, 1963. May I refer to Cmd. Paper 22 of 1963, clause 23, sub-clause (3), at page 20, which reads: `Citizenship of Singapore shall not be severable from citizenship of the Federation, but a Singapore citizen by the loss of either shall lose the other also (subject to the provision made by this Part for the enrolment of a Singapore citizen as a citizen who is not a Singapore citizen).' What does this mean, Sir? This means. in fact, that deprivation of Malaysia citizenship (Singapore), that is, Singapore citizenship, automatically means deprivation of Singapore citizenship. Clause 64 of the Singapore Constitution, on page 153, the clause talking of "Termination of citizenship of Malaysia" reads: `Where a person who is a citizen of Singapore has renounced his citizenship of Malaysia or been deprived of his citizenship of Malaysia by the Government of the Federation such person shall be deemed to have renounced or been deprived of his citizenship of Singapore under this Constitution and such person shall cease to be a citizen of Singapore.' Sir, the citizen of Singapore, with such valuable rights according to the Prime. Minister a little while back, after becoming a Malaysia citizen (Singapore) now automatically loses his own Singapore citizenship once he loses his second-class Malaysia citizenship (Singapore). It is a ridiculous situation. In other words, our citizenship that has been won as a result of many years of anti-colonial struggle and sacrifice can now be lost through a stroke of the pen of some politicians miles away from Singapore. Our citizenship now becomes entirely dependent on the whims and fancies of politicians in the Federation. The Singapore citizen is controlled, kicked about like a football by people outside Singapore. The Malaysia citizen (Singapore) is, in fact, the Federal national on which we debated at length in the merger debate in 1961. We have pointed out that the Federal national has duties but no rights. For example, he has duties to be taxed and to be called up as a soldier. His only right as a Federal national or Malaysia citizenship (Singapore) is the right to hold a Federal passport, and nothing else. This second-class citizenship is not a gain. On the contrary, it brings with it the extremely grave danger of loss of our own Singapore citizenship. Without the present merger arrangements, the Singapore citizen needs fear no one outside Singapore. Now if he should displease the Federation politicians who are in power, he might well lose his own citizenship. Is it not an ironical and absurd situation - to become a Malaysian citizen (Singapore), a pore citizen gains nothing? On the contrary, he stands to lose. This is now clearly stated in the proposed Federal Constitution. May I refer you, Sir, to clause 27 (7) on page 23. which reads: `A certificate of naturalisation as a Singapore citizen shall not be granted without the occurrence of the government of Singapore.' This sounds as if the Singapore Government has certain powers. But it, in fact, means that the Singapore Government has already lost its power to grant naturalisation certificates to its twin citizens. The power now has been given to the Federation and the Singapore Government can only concur with the decision of the Federation Government Even the registration of citizens must have the concurrence of the Federation Government. This can be seen in clause57 of the Singapore Constitution at page 150. At the bottom of that page, it reads that such registration can only be registered with the concurrence of the Government of the Federation as a citizen of Singapore. This is a loss of power of the Singapore Government. In fact, it means a loss o, the basic rights of Singapore citizens to pressure their own Government for more democracy and freedom. The citizens of Singapore until today are still ruled by the United Kingdom Government, thousands of miles away, a Government in which the people of Singapore are not represented. Now Singapore citizens are similarly ruled by a Government far away in Kuala Lumpur, a Government in which the people of Singapore do not have adequate representation and influence. And the people who try to increase this representation and influence run the grave risk of losing their citizenship in Singapore. Therefore, the Government in Kuala Lumpur is no different from the imperial Government in London, so far as the people of Singapore are concerned. We have repeatedly pointed out. Sir, that the P.A.P. merger proposals will only make Singapore a colony of the Federation. This is clear proof of what we have said. May I refer you, Sir, to page 23, clause 28 (1) and (2) ? Here it lays down that in the granting of Federation citizenship to Singapore citizens and non-Singapore citizens, the Federation Government does not confer any advantage on the Singapore citizen as against the foreigner. In other words, the status of a Singapore citizen is no better than that of a foreigner. For example, Sir, if you, a Singapore citizen, and another non-citizen both apply for Federation citizenship and both applications are treated in the same way, then it in fact means that being a citizen has given you no advantage whatsoever, both are treated exactly alike. Singapore citizens, therefore, are treated like foreigners and are no better than foreigners in the present merger arrangements. May I again refer you, Sir, to clause 56 in page 150? There it lays down a large number of conditions, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), which a person has to fulfil before he can become a citizen of Singapore. We want to point out that this is mere eyewash and nothing else. It gives a false impression to the people that with all these conditions it is just as difficult to become a Singapore citizen as it is to become a Federal citizen. But, and the rub is here, who would bother to change a citizenship that is of h4gher value for a citizenship that is of lower value? Nobody would care to change his own first-class citizenship for a second-class citizenship. Therefore, although these conditions are written down in the Constitution, they are there merely to give a false impression to the people concerning the value of this second-class citizenship. Let me go back again to page 22, clause 26, paragraph (d). Here it lays down the language qualification in citizenship by registration, it says Malay, English, "or any native language in current use in Sarawak". For example. Iban can be used as one o, the languages if they want to accept it as a language to test a person who wants to qualify for citizenship. Sir, my complaint is this: there are many languages in common use in Singapore and in the Federation itself, e.g. Tamil, Chinese, and other languages. But they are not recognised as suitable for use in such language tests. This shows most clearly the unfair and unjust discrimination against Chinese and Tamil. Moreover, there is no such thing as the waiving of the language barrier for the first year as in the original Constitution. This shows the discrimination that has been practised against the people of Singapore. Section 4 of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance admits the principle of jus Soli, i.e. every person born in Singapore becomes a citizen of Singapore by birth. Sir, this is our basic inherent right and this principle is recognised in almost all civilised countries of the world. Yet clause 54 (2) (c), at page 150, says: `A person shall not be a citizen of Singapore by virtue of clause (1) of this Article if at the time of his birth -

Do you not know?

If we have not got it correctly, surely they can explain to us. If that reading is correct, then it means that in future babies born of non-citizens in Singapore will no longer become citizens of Singapore.

Nonsense!

If the Minister will care to explain, I am quite ready to give way.

You cannot understand what you are reading.

Order. [Interruption] Dr Lee, please continue.

The Minister has all the able civil servants here ready to help.

There is a proviso laid down.

Proviso? `Provided that paragraph (c) of this clause shall not apply to any person if, as a result of the application of that paragraph, he would not be a citizen of any country.'. That is no consolation to anybody. Sir. The fact remains that this right of jus soli is now being taken away from the people of Singapore. The Federation Government put in this amendment in January or February last year and it caused an uproar.

On a point of clarification. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker. Sir, clause 54 (1) in page 149 says: `Subject to the provisions of this Article, every person horn in the State after the coming into operation of this Constitution shall be a citizen of Singapore by birth.'. How can the principle of jus soli be taken away when every person born in Singapore after the coming into operation of this Constitution will be a Singapore citizen by operation of law?

The Member for Queenstown is referring to sub-clause (2) (c). That was the reference. Will the Member for Queenstown carry on? There will be a reply, I take it, some time.

Sir, obviously the Minister does not know himself -[Laughter]

Order.

Shame!

Order. Please continue.

We do not have the benefit of civil servants who are well versed in law. But we read what we can see and our interpretation is such. If is wrong. I hope the Minister will explain. Sir, this taking away the right of jus so1i is a real step backwards. I hope the P.A.P. will rectify this before they get out from government. Let me refer you. Sir, to section 8 (3) of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance. It lays down that a woman may be registered as a citizen of Singapore if she is properly married, according to law, to a Singapore citizen. But in Cmd. Paper 22 of 1963, page 151, clause 57 (2), lays down two further conditions for citizenship registration in Singapore: `(a) that she has resided continuously in the State for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the date of the application: and (b) that she is of good character.' Sir, these are most unreasonable conditions, especially the condition of this "good character". What is a good character and what is a bad character? Front the way the Federation politicians look at things, any person who opposes the ruling Party in the Federation can be deemed to be a person of bad character. Well, the Prime Minister, who sells Singapore down the river to the Federation, might consider himself a person of good character. But with the increasing acrimony in the open feud between the P.A.P. and the M.C.A., it might well be that, if Khaw Kai Boh, for example, should become the Internal Security Minister -

God help you!

- the Prime Minister himself will not be considered a person of good character. And then what happens? The Prime Minister himself will lose his citizenship because he is no more a person of good character. [Laughter] It may well be. Why should this kind of conditions be put down? We consider all this very unreasonable. Then. Sir, in page 153, clause 65, which deals with deprivation of citizenship and the cancellation of the enrolment of any child of that person. This, to our thinking, is another unjust and unreasonable provision. It has been a universal principle, accepted in all civilized countries, that the sins of the father should not be visited on his child. But this provision wants us to uphold something diametrically opposed to this universal principle. I remember, Sir, this provision was added as an amendment to the Federal Constitution early in 1962. Now we are asked to have the same amendment in our Singapore constitution. This is a shame and it is a most unfair, unreasonable, unjust, illogical provision that has been accepted by the P.A.P. Government. We say all these provisions are unjust. The PAP, now talks of logic and cold reason. Fair and just? Are these provisions fair and just to the people of Singapore? Let me summarise all these new blessings of Malaysia for the Singapore citizen: 1. The Singapore citizen can now lose his citizenship if he is deprived of his new second-class Malaysian Citizenship (Singapore). 2. Singapore loses its power to grant naturalisation certificates. 3. Singapore loses its power to grant registration certificates. 7.43 p.m.

4. A person born in Singapore loses his basic right of citizenship by birth. 5. The child of a Singapore citizen can lose his or her citizenship if the parent's citizenship is cancelled. 6. Definition of "good character" of a person in Singapore now depends on the whims and fancies of politicians in the Federation, that is, outside Singapore. 7. The wife of a Singapore citizen needs further residential qualification to become a citizen of Singapore. What can we see from all these amendments? We see in them proof of what we have repeatedly said time and time again. We have seen in them clear proof that the Singapore citizen has been converted from a first-class citizen into a second-class citizen with the P.A.P. merger. Singapore citizens become Malaysian Citizens (Singapore). Sarawak citizens and Sabah citizens also become Malaysian citizens, just like all the Federation of Malaya citizens. But Sabah and Sarawak citizens have no chop on them as Singapore citizens have. Whereas Sarawak and Sabah citizens have the same rights and privileges as Federation Malaysian citizens, Singapore citizens will be isolated and not given these equal rights. Sabah and Sarawak citizens can go to the Federation to vote and to stand for election. The Singapore citizens are denied these rights. Why should this be so? Where is equality? Where is the Malaysian citizen being saved for Singapore? it is clear proof that the Singapore citizens, are second-class citizens. The law makes it difficult still for people to obtain Singapore citizenship. But the P.A.P. merger has now made it very easy to lose it. You gain nothing, but you lose a lot. I must point out that these new citizenship laws for the State of Singapore were not debated on in the merger debate. They are all new additions and the Prime Minister has no right, no mandate, from this House to change them. The White Paper and the later exchange of letters state that Singapore citizens will become Malaysian Citizens (Singapore). But the White Paper states - may I refer you, Sir, to the White Paper'? The White Paper states on page 4, section 14: `All Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship...'. And in the last line of the first paragraph, it says: `Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their State rights and privileges within Singapore.' This is in the White Paper debated and "endorsed" by the people in the sham P.A.P. referendum. Now, we see that the Singapore citizen will not be able to keep his citizenship. Neither will be continue to enjoy his State rights and privileges within Singapore, if at any time he displeases the bosses in the Federation. The Singapore citizen, therefore, is now sold hook, line and sinker. What right has the P.A.P. to change all these provisions? The people of Singapore have thought all along that they would continue to enjoy their citizenship rights and privileges. The P.A.P. repeatedly said this during the 1961 merger debate, during the Chinese Chamber of Commerce forum, and later during the referendum campaign. Why has the P.A.P. not told the people of Singapore all this before? Why did the Prime Minister say one thing and now agree to another? Is it not a sell-out through and through'! Has he not become the traitor? Is he not the traitor? Of course, he is. Selling out all our rights. Let the P.A.P. inform the people of Singapore why the Prime Minister signed away all those rights of Singapore in this manner. Now it is truly a sell-out, signed in London. All Singapore citizens are in great danger of losing their citizenship rights if at any time Federation politicians feel like exercising their rights. For this, we must thank the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister, the traitor. I wish, Sir, to refer to another subject. I wish to refer to the question of the powers of the State. May I refer you to page 29, clause 39, sub-clause (1), which deals with emergency Jaws? It reads: `In Article 150 of the Constitution (which makes special provision for legislation in the event of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong being satisfied of the existence of a grave emergency whereby the security or economic life of the Federation or of any part thereof is threatened, whether ...' And now these are the important words, Sir: `... by war or external aggression or internal disturbance) there shall be omitted in clause (1) the words "whether by war or external aggression or by internal disturbance"'. What does this clause mean? It means that when there is no war or external aggression or internal disturbance, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Federation Government or the U.M.N.O. Alliance can, at any time, according to the whims and fancies of the Federation politicians, proclaim an emergency and impose a dictatorship over the whole Federation. It means that at any time the politicians who are now in power, when they feel so inclined, can use the State powers to suppress all political opponents. It means that even in time of peace when there is no external aggression and when there is no internal disturbance, the Federation Government can subject the lives of the people to wartime emergency restrictions. Sir, these are very important powers. They should not be lightly given, because these powers mean, in fact, that, the very limited freedoms that we haw won through such hardships, sacrifice and unremitting struggles all through the years -

What sacrifice have you made?

- can, with one stroke of the pen, he taken away and military and Fascist rule imposed on the people. Do we want to have such a state of affairs? The power to use these Emergency-Law provisions lies with the ruling Party, and the people are in no position to prevent misuse or abuse of such powers. At any time, emergency restrictions can take away the basic freedoms of the people, of association and assembly, free speech and publication. May I ask what safeguards then have we of the limited democracy that we have today - the limited democracy that has been won after all these years of hard struggle? This is an outrageous provision. We can understand the British and a reactionary ruling Party wanting such a provision, because it enables a colonial and a reactionary government to ride roughshod over all opposition, but for the P.A.P., that has claimed to be at one time a socialist Party, to agree to such a provision is incredible. Why? How can the Prime Minister still claim that he has the interests of the people at heart? By actively promoting such a Malaysian Agreement, he now shows to all the people of Singapore that he is truly a hundred per cent out-and-out colonial stooge. How does he hope to fight for a more equal and just society by agreeing to such a provision? Overnight, all anti-colonial stalwarts and socialists can be put into prison and a military dictatorship imposed. Sir, this provision must be removed. May I refer you to page 27, clause 35, sub-clause (1) of the Malayan constitution Documents? It refers to "appropriate supplement to List II". Before we talk of this, let me refer you to the Federal Constitution. Article 76, subsection (4) on page 60 allows the Federation Parliament to legislate for the State in certain, cases. Article 91, subsection (5), on page 70 relates to control of Parliament over State lands, mining, agriculture and forestry through the National Land Council. Article 95, subsection (1) on page 73 of the Malayan Constitution Documents relates to the inspection of State activities by any Federation officer. And Article 92 relates to powers given for the National Development Plan. All these relate to financial control contained in Articles 108, 109 and 111. Then Article 75 deals with the inconsistencies between the Federation and State laws. It says: `If any State law is inconsistent with the Federal law, the Federal law shall prevail and the State law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.' Now, let me refer you back again to clause 35, sub-clause (1) of Cmd. 22 of 1963. There it says "appropriate supplements". What are the appropriate supplements? Do they refer to labour and education? In actual fact, in Part II of the List II.B. Education, Labour, Medicine and Health are listed as State lists. Sir, remembering all this, let me now refer you to clause 42, sub-clause (1) on page 30. This is important, because once you know all the previous powers of the National Development Council, then you can understand how this new clause works. Clause 42 sub-clause (1) allows Singapore and the three Borneo States powers to exercise their State rights, but sub-clause (2) reads: `This Article shall cease to have effect in the case of Singapore if Parliament with the concurrence of the Governor so provides.' In other words, what power has been given in sub-clause (1) now gets taken away in sub-clause (2) so far as Singapore is concerned. And therefore Article 76 in the Constitution will apply in toto to Singapore. Article 76 says: `Parliament may make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List.' Through this Article, the Federation Government can nullify whatever autonomies there are in labour and education in Singapore. If the Federation Government can use these Articles to act, then, of course, the autonomies will be only autonomies in name, and this is exactly what we have said long, long ago. It merely proves that the autonomy is a false one, because at any time if the Federation Government chooses to exercise its powers, the autonomy can be interfered with and restricted in all sorts of ways. Clause 43, sub-clause (1) on page 30 allows the Federation Parliament to have control over the State in agriculture and forestry. I see that the Prime Minister has an amendment on this very clause itself. But sub-clause (5) of clause 43 allows the Federation to sidestep the Singapore Legislative Assembly in matters of land, etc, in the case of Sabah, it is different. Sub-clause(5) (a) reads: `Clause (2) shall cease to apply as regards Article 91, to Singapore if Parliament so provides with the concurrence of the Governor.'. In other words, as long as the Governor approves, any law which the Government in the Federation decides on, need not have the concurrence of the State Legislative Assembly. It means that although Singapore is supposed to have autonomy in education and labour, and although Singapore has its State powers over land, forestry, agriculture and other matters of local government - and such departments are listed in List 11, that is, the State List, of the Ninth Schedule - there are now provisions to ensure that the Central Parliament can nullify the State powers of Singapore whenever the Central Parliament so desires. The State Governments of other States shall not be required to follow the policy formulated by the National Land Council or any other National Council for local government; and the Central Parliament must have the concurrence of the State Legislative Assembly in all projects that affect departments in List II, that is, the State List. But, and this is a very important `but', Sir, in the case of Singapore, it is going to be different. The Central Parliament can, at any time, sidestep the State Legislative Assembly. The Central Parliament need only have the concurrence of the Governor of Singapore. What happens to the powers of the State Legislative Assembly? The Singapore State Government is supposed to be in charge of all State departments as put down in List II of the Ninth Schedule. And in the case of Singapore, they are education, medicine and health, labour and social security, factories, electricity, itinerant hawkers. But the Central Parliament, through the National Land Council, can easily interfere with the development projects of education and labour. It may well even be that the building of a new school will not be allowed. Now, all sorts of preposterous situations can arise, and the Federation can easily control any expansion of the Education Department and education services in Singapore. The Federation already controls the Education Department of Singapore through internal security. Now there is further indirect control in clause 42 and clause 45 of the proposed Federation Constitution. Where then is the autonomy in labour and education for Singapore? As far as we can see, it is autonomy only in name, and it is only autonomy so long as the Federation Government does not want to interfere. If at any time the Federation Government decides to interfere, then the autonomy goes. These new provisions make the partnership arrangement into a complete merger arrangement without the compensatory granting of citizenship rights and proportional representation to the State of Singapore, and under those circumstances it becomes most unfair and most unjust to the people of Singapore. May I refer you, Sir, again to Cmd. 22 of 1963, pages 41 and 42? I refer to clause 60 sub-clauses (1), (2) and (4). All of them refer to restrictions on the right to form association conferred by other clauses, and they may even be imposed by any law relating to labour and education. Clause 60 (1) already talks of restrictions on the right of free movement throughout the Federation, It can only mean that there will be no unification of the labour movement in the area, and it can only mean that student travel, cultural exchange, will be restricted. The Prime Minister talks of reciprocal powers, hut that has no meaning when we refer to the Prime Minister's slogan for merger. He used to say, "National unity through merger." With this restriction, how can he talk of national unity when people in one part of the Federation cannot go to another part of the same Federation! The rights gained through all the years of hard struggle - the rights and freedoms of speech and publication, association and assembly - will be immediately interfered with Clause 60 (4) empowers Parliament to pass legislation to restrict association of workers and students. We can see from this that there is no autonomy for workers and unions and civic Organisations. Now one more, may I refer to page 47, clause 69 (1) (a) and (c)? Here it says: `No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Governor if the amendment is such as t affect the operation of the Constitution in relation to Singapore as regards any of the following matters -

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

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

I was speaking about the four factors which the Prime Minister listed in the working-out of a financial arrangement with the Federation, and we find that although he listed those four factors, namely, the number of seats, the area to be defended, the population ratio and the prosperity index, there is, in fact, no increase in the number of seats, no increase in the size of Singapore - in fact, there is a decrease - there is no big increase in the population of Singapore and yet the Prime Minister has given away millions and millions of dollars of the wealth of Singapore. Under those circumstances, we must ask, why has the P.A.P. to increase the amount of Singapore's contribution to the Federation? What type of logic is this? Is this not the sell-out logic of the P.A.P.? Sir, on 15th April, 1963, the front page of the Straits Times listed "We stand Pat" and that meant that the Prime Minister was putting up a very firm stand, in fact, a very unexpectedly firm stand. He said on that occasion, on the back page of the Straits Times of 15th April, that taxation and representation are closely related. "Since we keep most of our taxes we, therefore, reduce our representation of the Central Parliament by several seats." What do these words mean? Firstly, Sir, they confirm what the Barisan Sosialis has been saying all along, namely, that Singapore does not have proportional representation and that she has had a raw deal in the P.A.P. merger proposals. Secondly, they show that the Prime Minister himself realises that there must be no taxation without representation. Now, he knowingly, consciously, voluntarily and willingly signed away millions and millions of dollars of the people's money without adequate and compensatory representation. Sir, simple logic tells us that if more money is given away, naturally the number of Central Parliament seats for Singapore must be increased. If giving away $78 million could get for Singapore only 15 seats, surely giving away 2� times that amount should entitle us to 2� times 15, or round about 37 seats in the Central Parliament. Since the number of seats remains at 15, is this not clear evidence therefore of a P.A.P. sell-out? Is this not proof, right from the horse's mouth of the Prime Minister, that he has given away money without adequate representation? Of course, money earned by the sweat and toil of the people of Singapore, as was so often stressed by the Prime Minister on his constituency tours, is regarded by the P.A.P. as of minor and secondary importance. The Minister for Finance has said, "What is a few millions between friends?" What he really means, in fact, Sir, is what is a few millions of the people's money between the P.A.P. Ministers and their friends? Is it not a nice way of saying things? The people's money between the P.A.P. Ministers and their friends! We can see concrete examples of this P.A.P. philosophy in the step-by-step P.A.P. surrender to the Federation in the financial cost. In the negotiations with the Federation, the P.A.P. is willing to change from payment in one lump sum and payment only for Federal services in Singapore to payment by percentage to the Federation and payment for Pan-Malayan services. This is a big jump, Sir. Why this change? While, on the one hand, giving the impression to the people of Singapore that he was fighting to retain every cent of the money for Singapore, he agreed, on the other hand, to give more money away to the Federation. If this is not pure deception, then there must be something radically wrong with the heads of the P.A.P. Ministers. Until 25th May, 1963, the Prime Minister had been deceiving the people with talks of surpluses which he claimed are the result of a prudent and good government. We say, Sir, it is nothing of that sort. The early surpluses in Singapore were the result of downright inefficient and incompetent government. The P.A.P. Government has been too busy playing politics. It did not have the time to use the money of the people of Singapore and voted for in this Legislative Assembly on construction projects to help the people of Singapore. Surplus means, in actual fact, under-expenditure and under-use and, therefore, it means inefficient and bad government. But to come back, Sir, to the question we were discussing. The Prime Minister was telling the people that the Federation had wanted half of Singapore's surplus, but, of course, this is a surplus of another character. This is a surplus, not the result of under-expenditure of the P.A.P. Government over the last three years - $88 million in 1960, $125 million in 1961 and $93 million in 1962, making a total surplus of $304 million in three years; negligence of $304 million in three years - but the estimated result of an estimated increase in revenue in the years ahead. Let us follow the development of events. May I refer to Paper Misc. 4 of 1963? On page 45, Document III tells us that the Federation on 5th of April, 1963, proposed for the purpose of determining the apportionment that (1) any surplus of Federal revenue after meeting Federal services in Singapore will be used to meet the shortfall of Singapore revenue; (2) to meet central Federal expenditure such as defence, internal security, external affairs, Parliament, etc.; and (3) any balance will be apportioned 50/50 between the two Governments. And it goes on to explain that having determined the amounts from the Federation revenue that will go to the Federation Government and to the State Government, the ratio of the amounts should be used as the ratio for future apportionment. Since all calculations are based on the 1961 revenue and expenditure, and since the ratio calculated on the 1961 Federal revenue is 60 per cent Federal and 40 per cent State, so apportionment will be Federation 60 per cent and State 40 per cent in all Federal revenue. Sir, this is a very revealing Document and it shows how the Federation Government has been trying to soak Singapore all the way. And indeed the Prime Minister made use of this fact to create the impression that he was fighting for the interests of Singapore. He went from constituency to constituency telling the people how he was resisting the demands of the Federation Government, and all the time he talked of "surpluses" by which he sought to give the impression to the people of Singapore that the Federation was asking for surpluses that had come about as a result of underspending by the politics-playing P.A.P. Government in 1960, 1961 and 1962. And this game of Lee Kuan Yew-hero-playing-and-creating went on until 25th May, 1963, when in a letter to the Straits Times Mr Abdullah Bin Ayub, Deputy Controller of Supply in the Federation, revealed that the negotiations were, in fact, on the percentage payment of Singapore Federal taxes to the Federation. He said that once the percentage payment has been fixed, each Government would be responsible for its own budget and the question of deficit or surplus does not arise. Sir, this was a great blow to the P.A.P. This letter, in fact, says that the Prime Minister had not been telling the people the truth, because all the time it should have been a percentage but he was talking and telling the people that it was a matter of surpluses. After this Federation broadside, the P.A.P. had to completely shut up on the question of surplus. The Prime Minister, therefore, had to turn to new pastures in order to exploit the situation. The payment on a percentage basis was soon confirmed on 30th May, 1963, when both Governments agreed in principle to set up a Common Market. This, so far as we can see, is a great retreat for Singapore, because a percentage payment brings with it a built-in increase year by year. This is most clearly explained by no other than Mr Jek Yuen Thong, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister himself. In a letter to the Straits Times of 27th May, 1963, Mr Jek Yuen Thong pointed out that the built-in increase lies in three directions: (1) by natural increase in consumption and so increasing revenue; (2) by spread of the number of taxes over a wider range of commodities as times goes on; and (3) by increasing in actual level of taxation over which the Central Government has legislative authority. We see, therefore, that this percentage payment is a great disadvantage to Singapore, however you may look at it. It means, in fact, an added extra burden on the people of Singapore which increases year by year. The Prime Minister himself realised this. He also said there was a difference between 25 per cent of $400 million and 25 per cent of $500 million. He said this on 2nd June, 1963. In his visit to the Punggol Constituency on 3rd June, 1963, he pointed out that one per cent would mean $3 million after Malaysia, $5 million after 5 years, and $8 million after 10 years. Considering the fact that he knows how to calculate in this fashion, he should also have known what the giving away of extra millions of dollars means to the people. One would have thought that he would indeed have looked after the revenue of Singapore and sought all means to reduce the percentage payment to the Federation. If this had been done, he would indeed have been able to claim that he had fought for the interests of the people of Singapore. Facts unfortunately prove otherwise. If the Prime Minister had got the backing of the people, he would have the full confidence and the strength of the people behind him, and he would have been able to put up a really tough fight. But, unfortunately, as is evident to all the people in Singapore, he does not enjoy the backing of the people, and, consequently, he does not have the confidence and strength of the people behind him. Therefore, he could not have put up any real fight. He knows that he is already a discredited politician on his way out. He had gone on bended knees to the Tunku and it is unlikely, in the circumstances, that he would be able to get the Federation to reduce the figure of percentage payment to the Federation. On the contrary, and not unexpectedly, the Prime Minister had to increase the percentage figure all the time. But in spite of all this, events apparently came to a head over the Federation demand of the $50 million grant from Singapore and the so-called Common Market terms. Some of the facts were first revealed at the last sitting of the House on 10th June, 1963. The newspapers called it drama, and drama followed drama until a Federation ultimatum of Malaysia - "With or Without Singapore" - as reported in the Straits Times on 21st June, 1963, was handed to the Singapore Government. We all can still remember the tense moments of the deadlock in the financial talks. The P.A.P. on its side had played its hand well and through full use of the Government propaganda machinery had tried to create the impression that the Prime Minister was fighting a stubborn rearguard action every inch of the way. He gave Press interviews, spoke over T.V. informing the people that Singapore must have the Common Market terms written into the Constitution. He also said that Singapore is too poor to play Santa Claus with $50 million. What a heroic posture for the Prime Minister! If only he was really and truly fighting for the interests of the people of Singapore - if only, I say. But, of course, this was only a posture. Events have proved that the Prime Minister was merely putting up a front, an act, a performance to spotlight his return from London in a Gilbert and Sullivan traitor-turned-hero farce. After he had been summoned by his imperial master to London, he again staged a prepared comic opera in the London stage. There was news of how he had fought, and tonight he was telling us how he fought. He was reported to have negotiated right through the night and he was even reported to have used anti-Communist methods against Tun Razak and Tan Siew Sin. To use anti-Communist methods - I do not know what he meant. But from what the Prime Minister himself has revealed in this Chamber tonight, we knew he was eating sandwiches and he was drinking whisky and brandy. And then there was news of how very near it became a complete breakdown before there was final accord. And to some people, Sir - only some people - it appeared that Lee Kuan Yew was really fighting for their interests. Those who do not know of the contortionist agility of Lee Kuan Yew and company for twists and turns might have thought that he was really lighting every inch of the way. But when the bare essentials of these financial terms were made known to us in Singapore at that time, it was a great shock o all. All were shocked and amazed that the Prime Minister should have accepted terms which are so patently disadvantageous to Singapore and entirely advantageous to the Federation. Before going to London, the Prime Minister had already told the people in Singapore that the Federation demanded 40 per cent of Singapore's national revenue. He informed the people in T.V. broadcasts that - and he repeated the same thing again tonight - according to Singapore's calculations, payment to the Federation should amount to only 34 per cent of Singapore's national revenue. But - and we can see the difference between the Federation Government and the Singapore Government on this - while the Federation demand had remained at 40 per cent - no change whatsoever - the P.A.P. had already given way and increased the payment from 34 per cent to 37 per cent. This, Sir, is now revealed in Document VII on page 55 of Paper Misc. 4 of 1963. You will see in paragraph 3, it says: `Siew Sin is asking for 40% of our national taxes whereas our calculations show only 34.3% is due to him, but we are prepared to split the difference and settle at 37%.' This letter was written on 11th June. We know that this 37 per cent was subsequently further raised to 39 per cent, and then in London the Prime Minister went one step further and increased the 39 per cent to 40 per cent - the 40 per cent originally demanded of Singapore by the Federation. We can see from this alone how the P.A.P. has been surrendering the rights of the people of Singapore step by step to the Federation. The Prime Minister has said that he was pressured both by the United Kingdom and the Federation Governments. But then what else can a stooge do but carry out the instructions of his imperial master? Did he fight back? Did he say that the interests of the people are paramount? No. He just surrendered. Only a matter of percentage, according to the P.A.P. Ministers. And yet this evening, the Prime Minister himself tells us that not even half a point has been given away. From what we can see 34 per cent to 40 per cent is 6 points - not half a point; many points. One point means a lot of money too. I will come to that later. Sir. The deal in London, therefore, and I quote the words of the Prime Minister himself, is all one-sided to the advantage of the Federation Government and fair and just only to the Federation Government. When the Prime Minister talks of fairness and justice, he never thinks of the Singapore people. It is not fair and just to Singapore. It is fair and just all right to the Federation. Working on an annual national revenue of $310 million - and this was quoted by Mr Tan Siew Sin when he came back from London - one per cent works out to $3.1 million, and 40 per cent works out to $124 million. But, of course, to the Prime Minister the percentage is not important, and this is what he said in a letter to the Tunku on 22nd June - Document IX on page 63. In his letter to the Tunku, the Prime Minister said the percentage is not important - I stress, is not important. I do not know what is important to him. One per cent, as far as we know, is $3.1 million. If we work all our lives, we will never get one-tenth of that amount of money. But to the Prime Minister, the percentage of the money of the people earned through their sweat and toil, as so often stressed by the Prime Minister, is not important. The only thing important is the P.A.P.; that is all. After seeing how the P.A.P. has sold out the rights of the people of Singapore step by step, we can now see the difference between the White Paper and the present Malaysia Agreement in London on this one item alone. What was originally a lump sum payment to the Federation of only $78 million per year for Federal services in Singapore - and which was stated by the Prime Minister himself to be as low as only $60 million recently - has now become a payment of 40 per cent of Singapore's national revenue amounting to $124 million per year and for Pan-Malaysian defence - no more a matter of Malayan defence, but now of Pan-Malaysian defence. This amount increases year by year, and this is but the beginning, because, as we shall see, there is more to pay for Singapore. We know that although the Prime Minister says, on the one hand, that Singapore cannot afford to give a $50 million grant to the Borneo territories, yet, on the other hand, he is in fact giving more than that amount away in the $150 million loan to the Federation. $100 million of which is interest free for the first five years. anti this interest-free period can be extended for another live years. It means, of course, that Singapore is giving away an interest-free loan of $100 million to the Federation for 10 years, because if it can be extended, then, of course, it will be extended. The power does not rest with the Singapore Government. The Federation Government has the power. And any agreement which says that it can be extended in fact means that it will be extended. Therefore, the interest-free period, in fact, is ten years and not five years, as has been explained by the Prime Minister. Simple interest on $100 million at five and a half per cent would amount to $55 million in ten years, i.e. $5.5 million a year. The compound interest will amount to much more than that. It is, therefore, a loss of $55 million in ten years and this becomes a double loss of $100 million if Singapore has to borrow money and pay the same or higher interest on the loan borrowed. I might at this point remind you, Sir, of the $45 million World Bank loan given to the Singapore Government for the power station project. In that loan given to Singapore by the World Bank, all the most humiliating terms are exacted from the Singapore Government. Singapore has to buy all the materials through the World Bank; Singapore has to employ a super engineer who will probably, as far as I understand, earn a salary of $6,000 a year, and Singapore has again to employ supplementary personnel to help this super engineer, again through the World Bank, and, on top of that, has to assure payment of an interest of at least eight per cent; at the same time mortgaging all the Municipal properties of Singapore to the World Bank for a mere pittance of $45 million. All our Singapore Municipal properties, worth much more than that, millions of dollars, all mortgaged to the World Bank. Why do we have to borrow all that money when Singapore has $400 million in the kitty? We have asked this question many times. The Singapore Government - the P.A.P. - has not been able to answer that question. We hope they might provide an answer and we will see what they have to say. Sir, let me come back to this $150 million loan to the Federation. This is a completely new item and is not found anywhere in the White Paper. But, as I was saying, what is most puzzling and completely inexplicable to the people of Singapore is that, on the one hand, the P.A.P. has to borrow $45 million for the power station project from the World Bank on such humiliating terms, and even to borrow another $70 million for the Johore River project, probably on the same terms; on the other hand, the P.A.P. can loan $150 million of the people of Singapore's money to the Federation, $100 million of which is interest free. If it is found necessary that Singapore has to borrow, then elementary logic tells us that Singapore cannot afford to lend. So what type of reason and logic says that although we have to borrow, we still can afford to lend? Is this the logic of the Finance Minister who says, "What is a few millions between friends?", or is it the logic of the Prime Minister who says, "The percentage is not important."? Sir, there are many people who openly say that this loan is an eyewash. They say, it is not a loan. The word "loan" is only an euphemism for the words "outright gift". The Member for Anson has pointed out that when the time comes for repayment of the loan, Singapore will not be in a position to demand such a repayment. The loan, is, therefore, in effect, a gift, a tribute from a vassal to his overlord. The vassal, in the person of the Prime Minister of Singapore, has to pay a tribute to his overlord, the Prime Minister of the Federation, for helping the Prime Minister of Singapore to crush his political opponents. The Prime Minister claims that he has not given away $150 million in an outright grant. But has the Prime Minister really saved the money as he has claimed? To us, money is only meant for use for development to raise the living standards of the people. Money invested abroad is of no use to all of us in Singapore. Put to proper use, however, the $150 million loan is worth more than the $150 million outright grant. This is confirmed by the World Bank and by no other person than the Prime Minister himself in his letter to the Tunku on 22nd June. 1963. May I refer you, Sir, to Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, Document IX, page 63? In the fourth paragraph, the last sentence reads: `And loans from Singapore for North Borneo and Sarawak's development up to $150 million will give a greater impetus on their economic growth.' He was referring to why he did not want to give the $50 million grant. But, in comparison, he says the $150 million loan will give a greater impetus on their economic growth. This is an open admission that he has given away, in fact, more to the Federation than the $50 million which he said he was trying to save. So how has the P.A.P. saved any money for the people of Singapore? He is merely pretending to refuse payment. He is only saying, "No", with one hand, when in fact he gives more generously away with the other hand. The Prime Minister knows how to say that the $150 million can be used to build 13 blocks of Selegie House and can be used also to metal all the roads and to light up all the rural areas in Singapore. So, why does he not keep back the $150 million for development in Singapore? Why is it that Singapore has to loan the money to others, when Singapore itself needs to borrow more and more money for its own development? Since 1963, five loans, totalling nearly $250 million in all, have been floated in Singapore. This was revealed by the Finance Minister only last week. Why float loans for the development of Singapore on the one hand and yet loan money away for the development o other territories on the other hand? Is this not absurd? Already the P.A.P. has invested our money abroad to help develop other already developed countries. Can the P.A.P. explain why a poorly developed country, like Singapore, must use its own money to help develop more advanced countries, like Australia, Canada, England? Why? Is this the logic the P.A.P. has talked about? Is it logical to give money away when the people of Singapore need the money themselves? Is this not the logic of traitors? And does the Prime Minister know what the $110 million lost in the interest-free loan mean to the people of Singapore? I will just quote a few examples. For example, Singapore can easily use the money to buy over the Singapore Traction Company. This will immediately stop further exploitation of the people of Singapore by foreign monopoly capital. It will stop all remittances of profits from Singapore to areas outside Singapore. Why does he not do that? it does not even cost $10 million. Why give away $110 million in interest-free loans? Then, to quote another example, with this $110 million we can allow 100,000 families to stay rent free in $20 per month housing units for six years. Then, another example: free secondary education for 300,000 students at $4 per month for eight years. Yes, the $110 million can be used for quite a lot of things besides building Selegie House, metalling roads, installing lights. We can reduce the rents in the Housing Board flats in Singapore. We can give free education to our students. We can give more scholarships. Oh, so many things. If we were to think of our taxi-drivers, trishaw-riders, hawkers and market stall-holders, we could give them free licences for hundreds of years. For hundreds of years, they will not have to pay licences. In the case of the Harbour Board, for example, with that money, Singapore can easily give $100 increase per worker per month to the 10.000 workers in the Singapore Harbour Board for ten years. The P.A.P. does not have to wait until now, after 4 years of non-recognition, before promising to pay $2 million to the S.H.B. workers and call it a so-called Malaysian bonus - that has not even been given yet. So you can see, Sir, what the P.A.P. Government has been doing to Singapore. At every stage the P,A.P. has surrendered to the Federation the basic interests of the people of Singapore. Let me now touch on the question of financial control. At one stage of the financial talks, the Prime Minister took a strong stand on the matter of control of Singapore's finances. On this, the Prime Minister said on 7th March, 1963, that Singapore must keep all her revenue. And he explained that "the word `keep' does not mean get back from Kuala Lumpur." He further stressed as follows: `How can Singapore, as agreed in the White Paper, pay a contribution for Federal services, if she does not collect and keep it in the first instance?' When I first read that, it sounded very logical to me, and I was wondering what the Prime Minister was up to. Undoubtedly, those words had given the impression to the people of Singapore that the Prime Minister was going to stand firm on this question. Being a lawyer, he knew what he was talking about. On 23rd March, 1963, he went even one stage further to stress that "Singapore must collect, keep and pay." Therefore, on the question of who is to control the machinery for the collection of revenue in Singapore, as was posed by Mr Tan Siew Sin, our own Prime Minister here tells the people that it is Singapore that must have control of the money collected in Singapore. Of course, later on, as is typical of P.A.P.'s twists and turns, the Minister for Finance said in the Straits Times on 17th April, 1963, that "who controls the revenue of Singapore is not so important." By this, already the Minister for Finance admits that the Federation has control of the revenue of Singapore. But this did not prevent the Prime Minister from saying something completely the opposite. In an interview televised over the B.B.C. Panorama on 6th May, 1963, he stated categorically: `We have got to collect the revenue to be able to spend it in the way we want.' These are very firm words, Sir. And when he was asked the question: "So control over finance will be a minimum condition for your going into the Federation?". The Prime Minister said, "Oh, yes, absolutely basic." That is what he said, "Absolutely basic. Control over finance will be a minimum condition for going into the Federation, and that is absolutely basic." What has happened to this "absolutely basic" control over finance in Singapore? As far as we can see, it was not even a puff of smoke. It was gone with the wind even before it came into existence. This financial control was only a fiction conjured up by the Prime Minister to allow him to deceive the people. It served him as a false front in his horse trading with the Federation. Are we not now controlled in toto by the Federation? Are we not going into the Federation bound hand and foot? Or is this another example of P.A.P. logic and cold reason? From the absolutely basic and minimum condition for going into the Federation, as laid down by no other person than the Prime Minister himself, he is now willing to act only as the Federation's revenue collector. This is a complete P.A.P. surrender to the Federation's ultimatum of 20th June, 1963. To save face, the P.A.P., in the Singapore paragraph-to-paragraph reply to the Federation Government's proposals, may I refer you, Sir, to Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, page 65: `The Singapore Government agrees in principle with the proposal to delegate authority in respect of the collection of Customs and Excise duty and Income Tax to the Singapore Government in accordance with Article 80 (4)....'. He agrees to it straightaway, although all along the P.A.P. has been saying that control over finance is absolutely basic and that this is the minimum condition for going into the Federation. But if we were to go further down, the P.A.P. also says: `However, this delegation of authority should be stated in the Constitution that such delegation of authority shall not be revocable except by mutual agreement.' I do not know about "shall not be revocable". Let us see what the Federation reply is to that. It is contained in paragraph 5 of Annex J on page 75 of Paper Misc. 4 of 1963 which reads: `Subject to the provisions of the Annex to this Agreement, executive authority in respect of the collection in Singapore of customs duties and excise and income tax shall be delegated to the Singapore Government.' Yes, "delegated to the Singapore Government". Correct: `The Federal Government may revoke this authority [that is the point, Sir] if the Singapore Government fails to comply with any direction properly given to it by the Federal Government for the collection or protection of these taxes or shows itself unwilling or unable to discharge these functions efficiently.' There you are. It even goes further to say: `This authority may extend to customs duties and other charges collected in Singapore on goods exported from or to be imported into Malaysia outside Singapore.' That is to say, Sir, Singapore can collect the revenue only at the pleasure of the Federation Government. If at any time the Federation Government feels so inclined, it can take over the collection of all Federal revenue itself. The Singapore Government collects only if the Federation allows it to collect. That is all. Absolute control, therefore, is in the hands of the Federation, and Singapore is now only the office-boy or rent-collector of the Federation. What of the brave words of the Prime Minister when he said, "We must collect and keep and pay."? Is the P.A.P. logic to talk tough and surrender abjectly? Is this P.A.P. logic not the logic of stooges and slaves'? Sir, these are the main items which are manifestly disadvantageous to Singapore. The only consolation to Singapore for the loss of control of its own revenue is an agreement that all Federal taxes collected in Singapore will be paid into a separate fund and this fund would be divided annually between the two Governments in the proportion of 60 per cent to Singapore and 40 per cent to the Federation. This is mentioned in page 57 in Document VIII dated 20th June, 1963, in a letter from the Federation Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Singapore. Paragraph 3 (a) reads: `All taxes collected in Singapore, other than those specified below, will be paid into a separate fund and the fund would be divided annually between the two Governments, or more frequently by agreement between the two Governments in the proportion of 60% to the Singapore Government and 40% to the Federal Government.' This is meant, in fact, to save face for the P.A.P. on its stand on the question of financial control where the P.A.P. has completely given in. There are also comparatively minor items like profits from the Currency Board and the Federation and Borneo contributions to Singapore for common services in Singapore. These are referred to in pages 19 and 20 of the same Paper. Paragraph 51, on page 19, talks of the Federation and Borneo in respect of the payment to Singapore for common services; and paragraph 52, on page 20, talks of the profits of the Currency Board which amount to $10 million a year. Singapore, therefore, has in fact now waived its claim to monies from both these sources which amount to more than $12� million. Page 49, Sir, at the bottom - Apportionment Percentages. No. 3 says: "...currency profits of $10 million." Therefore, the P.A.P. has gone yet one step further and it is now ready to pay for a share of even Pan-Malaysia expenditure. The final arrangements will come into operation on the 1st September, 1963. The promise of a review on the 1st January, 1965, and subsequently every two years will not be able to safeguard Singapore's interests, as hoped for by the Prime Minister. He will not be able to safeguard them because the independent assessor will always place the interests of the Federation first and those of the State second. It is a natural course of events. It is bound to be so. So the assessor, however independent, will not be able to safeguard the interests of Singapore. In every way, therefore, Singapore will be at a disadvantage. All the lifeblood of Singapore will be subject to Federation overall control, and it is quite obvious that the people of Singapore has the worse of the bargain in every respect. Let me first summarise the results of the financial merger talks: (1) What was supposed to be a lump sum payment for Federal services in Singapore in 1961 has now become a percentage payment for Pan-Malaysian services in 1963. (2) What was calculated by the P.A.P. Government as payment to the Federation of 34 per cent of Singapore's national revenue has now become a payment of 40 per cent. (3) What was originally a lump sum payment of only $78 million per year now becomes a percentage payment amounting to $124 million which increases year by year. (4) The P.A.P. says Singapore cannot afford to give a grant of $150 million, but finally the P.A.P. gives a loan of $150 million, $100 million of which is interest free. The $150 million is worth more than the $50 million grant in development planning. (5) From a bold stand of "must collect, and keep and pay", the P.A.P. is now willing to be only the office boy and rent-collector of the Federation. (6) The P.A.P. says categorically that the free port status after merger would remain. Now the free port status will be confined to Blakang Mati after 12 years. (7) With the free port status reduced to the size of Blakang Mati - I think I have got the summary ahead of time. I will keep this little back, and I will come back to it again. Let me first deal with this common market and the free port status. After having been exposed that it has surrendered to the Federation on every issue, the P.A.P. plays up the common market as a special prize that the P.A.P. has got for the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. claims that the interests of the people of Singapore have been safe-guarded and that the common market terms are all written into the Constitution. The P.A.P. claims that with the common market Singapore will prosper, the jobless will get jobs, and all the problems of Singapore will be solved and everyone will be happy. Is this true? What are the facts? A first glance tells us that the common market which the P.A.P. has got for Singapore is the most unusual and uncommon common market, and it practically writes "finis" to the entrepot trade in Singapore, the lifeblood of our people for the last 150 years. From the very beginning we have pointed out that the P.A.P. merger terms did not even provide for a common market between Singapore and the Federation. The P.A.P. had not been able to answer this during the time of the merger debate in 1961. Repeated questions inside the Assembly later merely extracted from the P.A.P. Ministers equivocal answers which were neither here nor there. The Prime Minister raised the Common Market terms only because of our constant criticism. Only on 13th April, 1963, was this question of the Common Market revealed to the public for th.3 first time. The Federation Finance Minister confirmed that this was an entirely new item, never discussed before in the financial merger talks between the Federation and Singapore Governments. This only proves that what the P.A.P. chooses to consider as the most important comes only as an after-thought as a result of our criticism. However, this Common Market question soon became an item of major importance in the financial talks. On 30th May, 1963, it was reported that both Governments had agreed in principle on the Common Market, and on the following day the Prime Minister announced with a guilty conscience that "this is not the end of the free port status in Singapore." What are the facts? Let us see what Annex J of the Malaysia Agreement says. Section 1 (1) reads: `The Federal Government, .... shall progressively establish a common market in Malaysia....'. And it is envisaged that the Common Market will be fully established at the end of 12 years. By the end of that period, the free port status of Singapore will have disappeared. At present the whole of Singapore is a free port, i.e. all 224 square miles of Singapore is a free port. What does the free port status of Singapore mean? It means, as explained by the Finance Minister a couple of years back, that apart from revenue duties on tobacco, liquor and petroleum, goods can be imported into Singapore without any import duties, and these have benefited Singapore in two ways. First, the people of Singapore are able to buy more goods cheaply; for instance, there is no duty on textiles, shoes, foodstuffs, and so on. The prices of such goods will be cheaper in Singapore as compared with the Federation of Malaya where there are import duties. The second benefit is to our traders. Much of our imports are re-exported to the neighbouring territories, e.g. the Federation, Sumatra, Sarawak, Borneo. Without the import duties our merchants can buy cheaply and sell to these territories cheaply. This is how our entrepot trade prospers. It therefore follows that when any import duty is levied in Singapore, the free port status is affected. Similarly, import duties can be levied on all sorts of consumer goods, e.g. toothbrush, toothpaste, shoes, polish, pencils, and so on. A free port status means a cheap cost of living for the people. Now in 12 years or less all the cheap living will become things of the past. Section 4 (2) reads: `Revenue duties in force in Singapore on 1st July, 1963, and the corresponding duties in force in the Federation of Malaya shalt be harmonised as soon as practicable.'. In other words, Sir, revenue duties on petrol, liquor, and tobacco will be harmonised. The price of petrol is the same on both sides of the Causeway today. But the prices of diesel oil, alcohol and tobacco are higher in the Federation than in Singapore today. This, therefore, means that the prices of diesel oil, alcohol, and tobacco will be raised, and cost more for the man in the street in Singapore. The taxi-driver, the bus traveller, will have to spend more money in order to go about their daily work. The earnings of taxi-drivers will correspondingly decrease. Where a man could afford three pints of beer before - An hon. Member: Like the Prime Minister.

Yes, like the Prime Minister, will be able to afford only two pints. A smoker will have to spend more on his daily smokes and he will have correspondingly less money for house-keeping. This is what will happen when Singapore loses its free port status. Is this what we want? Where else had the P.A.P. said about the free port status in 1961 and 1962? It is laid down in the White Paper (first paragraph of section 17) that "the free port status of Singapore ... will not be changed without the concurrence of both the Federal and the Singapore Governments." In the Merger and Your Future leaflet put out by the P.A.P., which is a Ministry of Culture publication No. 1/62 printed by the Government Printing Office, Singapore, it says here under the heading "Your Right and Benefits Before and After Merger", the item is "Free Port Status for Singapore" and under the column "Before Merger" it says "Yes", and under the column "After Merger", it also says "Yes". Therefore, there should be no change so far as the free port status of Singapore is concerned. Then in another Merger and Your Rights leaflet, also from the Ministry of Culture, No. 5/62, it says here on the back page: `Business Opportunities: Singapore retains her free port status after merger.' In a forum sponsored by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce on the 13th January, 1962, a question was asked, "If after merger the Central Government of the new Federation by levying taxes affect the free port status of Singapore, what measures can the Government adopt to face the situation?" A very simple question. The question was, "If after merger the Central Government of the new Federation by levying taxes affect the free port status of Singapore, what measures can the Government adopt to face the situation?" And the Minister for Finance answered, "The Central Government cannot do this without the agreement of the Singapore Government, of course. The situation envisaged by the questioner does not therefore arise." What a wonderful way of answering a question. The logical interpretation and implication of this answer is that the P.A.P. Government would not agree to any measures that would affect the free port status of Singapore. Anybody reading an answer like this must come to the conclusion that the Singapore Government would not change the free port status of Singapore. As I have pointed out, the P.A.P. further confirmed this with stout assurances that the present free port status will remain after merger. Thus we can see that the P.A.P. have repeatedly given assurances that the free port status of Singapore will remain. But what is happening now? According to the Malaysia Agreement signed in London, Singapore will not continue to be a free port. And by the end of 12 years, if the agreement is really put into effect, the only free port we will have in the domain of Singapore will be confined to the island of Blakang Mati. A free port status of 224 square miles of Singapore will be reduced to 658 acres of Blakang Mati. 658 acres, does it come to any square mile? There is also this referendum leaflet given out by the Government of Singapore - again it is a Ministry of Culture publication, No. 8/62. And concerning free port, it says: `What does Alternative A mean? It means Singapore will continue to be a free port.' That is what it says here in this leaflet. Is this not deception? Has the P.A.P. not deceived the people? Surely, the people did not - even assuming that they really did vote for Alternative A - vote for what is now in the Malaysia Agreement. Then we might ask: What will happen to our free port trade? The tourist trade flourishes only in a free port. If the free port status is reduced to the Island of Blakang Mati, then the tourist trade will have to be confined to Blakang Mati. 11.00 p.m.

The Rueff Report in page 78, paragraph 196, estimates that the tourist trade in Singapore can amount to anything like $100 million a year. It says here in the last sentence: `It is impossible to estimate the value of these transactions; but, on the basis of the indications obtained from the trade, it is likely that the unrecorded transactions taken as a whole may be as high as M$100 million.' Another $100 million gone down the drain. Then what of the small traders and shop-keepers who depend on this tourist trade? It does look as if the traders in High Street, South Bridge Road, Change Alley and even Raffles Square will have to look for new sources of income. They may even have to close down. Those gainfully employed may find themselves without jobs in the not too distant future. All thanks to the P.A.P. Clause 4 sub-clause (3) of the Malaysia Constitution says that until 31st December, 1968, that is five years from now, no new revenue duty can be imposed without the consent of the Singapore Government. But in the second five-year period, that is, from the 1st January, 1969, to 31st December, 1975, Singapore can refuse to agree to heavier duties only (and this is a very important thing) on payment of compensation on non-imposition of such duties in Singapore. After the 31st of December, 1975, that is after 12 years, the Singapore Government cannot withhold consent to imposition of whatever duty the Federation may wish to impose. In other words, duties will be imposed on consumer goods after five years at any time the Federation Government chooses to do so. If the duties are not paid for directly by the individual consumer or the trader, then the duties will have to be paid for indirectly from Government revenue, which, after all, is also collected from the people of Singapore. Therefore, either way, the people of Singapore will have to pay. Then what of the protective duties? Protective duties already imposed are not very many in number. Well-known examples are protective duties on soap and paint. But there are protective duties on many items of goods in the Federation. For example, medicines, tyres, batteries - you can name any number of items. Those who have travelled from Singapore to the Federation will know how much it costs them in ordinary day-to-day goods. We get cheaper medicine, for example, in Singapore. Once you go into the Federation, you have to pay, and pay through your nose too. It is, I think, a 20 to 30 per cent increase in price and naturally therefore the cost of living of the people will correspondingly go up with the imposition of these new protective duties. Of course, this will not affect those who are in the front row of the PAP. Government - they are well off enough. All of them have new cars. But to those who already find it difficult to make both ends meet, this extra duty on consumer goods will mean an extra burden and greater hardship. Is this what we want? Moreover, any increase in price on goods and products in every-day use will have its effect on other connected goods, thus creating a vicious circle leading to increased cost of living all round. We see, therefore, that after Malaysia is pushed through the free port status of Singapore will very rapidly diminish. The free port of Singapore will be shrunk in size from the whole island of Singapore, 224 square miles, to the size of the island of Blakang Mati, which is only 658 acres, about half a mile from Singapore. In order that the poor people may get a cheaper living - if they still want that cheaper living - they will have to go to Blakang Mati and stay there. Otherwise they will not get a cheaper living. If a person from the Singapore mainland goes to Blakang Mati to buy cheaper goods, he will have to pay duties on those same goods on return to Singapore. That is what it means. Everybody's cost of living will increase. As I say, the P.A.P. Front benches do not have to worry; they have enough money. There are not many people who have so much money. The Prime Minister says he will build bonded warehouses in the Harbour Board area and in Telok Ayer Basin. But how practical is this proposition? Already Singapore businessmen are complaining that this will hinder the trade of Singapore. Building warehouses in Blakang Mati itself would mean additional costs in storage and transport from the Singapore mainland to Blakang Mati and back again from Blakang Mati to Singapore. As pointed out on the 10th of July in the Straits Times, there is also the fear that banks would not guarantee the goods once bonded warehouses are introduced. Sir, a large portion of the goods for the entrepot trade is kept in warehouses owned by the banks, which also provide the credit facilities for the traders. Entrepot traders fear that having bonded warehouses would mean taking the goods away from the banks, leaving them nothing for security on the credit. So how will the P.A.P. overcome this difficulty? Does the P.A.P. itself intend to provide the credit facilities and so take over the role of banks in Singapore? If that is so, then the people must be informed about this. P.A.P. philantrophy with other people's money is now well known. So let the P.A.P. inform the people what it intends to do. Building a large number of bonded warehouses and charging very cheap rentals will not be able to solve all the problems. First of all, there is not enough space in the Harbour Board area. And how many bonded warehouses are they going to keep? People who normally go to High Street will not be able to go to bonded warehouses to buy things. And the tourist trade in Singapore will suffer greatly. Of course, the P.A.P. says that there is a Tariff Advisory Board. This Board is meant to advise on the establishment and maintenance of a common external tariff, but appointments to this Tariff Advisory Board shall be made by the Federation Government, and that is the rub. Singapore will be able to nominate only one of three Deputy Chairmen for the first five years, not after that. The whole Board, in fact, will be so weighed on the side of the Federation that in any clash of interests between the Federation and Singapore, as there certainly will be, Singapore interests cannot but suffer. Thus, even in the matter of the Tariff Advisory Board the advantages are entirely on the side of the Federation. This is not going to help Singapore. How will this help to promote Singapore industrialisation when Federation interests will always come first and Singapore State interests will always come second? In addition to protective duties on goods imported, their Government can also impose a special production tax on producers in a low tariff state and an export duty on primary products. This production tax on producers in a low tariff state and export duty on primary products are, of course, meant to protect Federation industries against Singapore industries. An example of production tax was given in our Barisan statement on the 13th of July, 1963. If the production cost of a pair of shoes in the Federation is, say, $1.50 and in Singapore only $1.00, then a production tax of 50 cents will be imposed on Singapore shoes in order to protect the shoe industries in the Federation. That is what production tax means. Everything produced cheaply here will have a production tax added on to it in order to give the industries in the Federation a chance to compete evenly and equally. Of course, all this can only work to the disadvantage of the Singapore industries. Another example is the production costs, and so the selling price of eggs. If eggs sell at 10 cents in the Federation and only 9 cents in Singapore, for example, then a duty of 1 cent will be imposed on each Singapore egg in order to level up the price of eggs to 10 cents in both Singapore and the Federation. This, in fact, puts Singapore products at a great disadvantage since the extra cost of transport - this is a new item - will mean that Singapore eggs will sell at a dearer price than that of Federation eggs in the Federation and outside Singapore. In both instances, it can mean only a rise in the cost of living for the people. In addition, clause 3 (2) of Annex J allows the Federation Government to impose or vary protective duties on Singapore at any time, even without prior reference to the Tariff Advisory Board. You may have a Board, but they do not have to consult the Board. Whether they do it that way or not is another matter, but the powers are there. They can do it. When new protective duties are imposed in the Federation, clause 3 (3) allows the Singapore Government to delay the imposition of the tax, but not reject it, and that only for a period of up to 12 months, not after that. After the 12-month period, the new protective duties will be imposed on Singapore, however the people of Singapore may object and protest. There is nothing we can do about it. If the Federation Government decides to impose these taxes on Singapore after the 12-month period, that is all there is to it. We may protest but we shall have to cough up. And in addition, during the 12 months, when Singapore can delay the imposition of these duties, the Singapore Government cannot grant any pioneer certificate to any industry which may be affected by the proposed protective duties. How then can Singapore promote her industries? If industries can be set up, they will be only industries that play a secondary role to Federation industries. It is quite clear that such terms of the uncommon Common Market which the P.A.P. has obtained for Singapore are not going to help our people at all. Quite to the contrary, all the benefits and advantages are going to be on the Federation side. Singapore will receive only the crumbs. The whole of the financial control is in Federation hands. Even the issue of pioneer certificates will have to be approved by the Federation Government. This is found in the Annex to Annex J. In the event that Singapore wishes to establish an industry that can compete with a similar existing industry in the Federation, then the pioneer certificates issued by the Singapore Government will not be approved. Even if the industry is not yet established but the Federation wishes to establish such an industry, a pioneer certificate issued by the Singapore Government will also not be approved. How then do we hope to promote industrialisation in Singapore? In the Annex to Annex J, the Federation Government has powers to fix the rate of tax on the value of goods for duty or for excise purposes. The Federation Government has powers also to make all regulations in relation to Customs and Excise. The Federation Government, in fact, has direct access to all documents and records of the Customs and Excise Department, and can issue directions to the Singapore Government to ensure collection and protection of Federation Customs duties and Excise. Thus, Singapore is merely to be the collector and office boy of the Federation. So what is all this talk about Common Market giving the people of Singapore benefits? What we have is only a very doubtful advantage. On the contrary, the disadvantages are certain and plain to see. We have repeatedly told the P.A.P. that without equal political rights the interests of the people of Singapore cannot be adequately protected and safeguarded. This bears out what we have repeatedly said, both inside and outside the House. So much for the Common Market which is going to deprive Singapore of the free port status and does not safeguard or protect her industries. Let me now briefly summarise the results of the financial merger talks. 1. What was supposed to have been a lump payment for Federal services in Singapore in 1961 has now become a percentage payment for Pan-Malaysian services in 1963. 2. What was calculated by the P.A.P. Government as payment to the Federation at 34 per cent of Singapore's national revenue has now become a payment of 40 per cent. 3. What was originally a lump sum payment of only $78 million per year now becomes a percentage payment amounting to $124 million which increases year by year. 4. The P.A.P. says that Singapore cannot afford to give a grant of S50 million, but finally the Prime Minister gives away a loan of $150 million, - $100 million of which is interest free. The $150 million loan is worth more than the $50 million grant in development value. (5) From the bold stand of "must collect and keep and pay", the Prime Minister now is willing to be only the office boy or rent-collector of the Federation. (6) The P.A.P. said categorically that the free port status after merger would remain. Now the free port status will remain and be confined only to Blakang Mati after 12 years. (7) With the free port status reduced to the size of Blakang Mati, the free port trade in Singapore will suffer with the grave danger of loss of employment, and increased cost of living for large sections of our people. (8) The Common Market terms are weighted entirely on the side of the Federation and will not promote, safe-guard and protect Singapore industries. (9) The harmonisation of taxes will mean a rise in price of consumer goods with a corresponding rise in the cost of living for the people of Singapore. Now, let me come to the question of land and the 50 per cent labour that the P.A.P. Government brags so much about, and let us see what they really mean. In addition to the payment to the Federation of 40 per cent of the national revenue of Singapore, and the loan of $150 million ($100 million of which is interest free), the Singapore Government has also agreed to pay for the (lay-to-day running and development of departments like Broadcasting, T.V., and others. Clause 7 of Annex J -

You never stop talking. The Prime Minister entered the Chamber.

I have been waiting for you, Mr Prime Minister.

Order.

You heard wrong; it was the Finance Minister.

You want a glass of tea?

Clause 7 of Annex J reads as follows: `The Singapore Government shall pay to the Federal Government the cost of capital development of Federal projects in Singapore other than projects for defence and internal security. The two Governments shall agree together on projects to be covered by this paragraph which do not provide predominantly local services. These include, inter alia, Airport development scheme and the round-the-world Commonwealth Cable scheme all of which will involve a total expenditure of more than $20 million.' Let me refer you to page 66, paragraph 4 of Paper Misc. 4. It is too long, and I do not wish to read it out but it says that $20 million will have to be paid for the airport development scheme and the Commonwealth Cable scheme. In addition, it says: `.... the Singapore Government agrees to bear the cost of future development expenditure in Singapore .... up to $3 million [per year].' The recurrent expenditure for Broadcasting, Airport, Defence, etc, comes to approximately $36 million per year. If we add these figures of $3 million -

On a point of order, Sir,Is the Member aware that he is, in fact, misquoting all these figures? Is he aware that all these figures are relevant to the percentage?

It is not a point of order. It is a matter of interpretation. The Prime Minister will be able to clarify when he winds up the debate on this motion. Dr Lee.

I am quite willing to let him clarify, if he could.

Sir, may I ask the Member a question on a point of elucidation?

Unless he wants me to -

Surely -

Is the Member giving way?

No, Sir.

There you are!

You asked him to clarify.

And even explain. If he explains too, then it is all right.

Yes. I would like to know from the hon. Member whether, in his opinion, because of merger and Malaysia we should stop the airport development, the round-the-world Commonwealth Cable, stop building police barracks, stop every-thing which are Federal projects, stop building any post office in Singapore after Malaysia'? Is he suggesting that we ought to do that?

He is not explaining at all. I am saying that he has given that money away and he has agreed to give that money away. That is the point.

A lot of drivel.

In addition, the Singapore Government agrees to bear the cost. Sir, if we bear the cost of future development expenditure in Singapore up to $3 million a year, that is, the recurrent expenditure -

Capital.

Capital expenditure.

- Broadcasting, Airport, and Defence, comes to approximately $36 million a year.

Sir, on a point of elucidation.

All right.

Can the Member distinguish between "current expenditure" and "capital expenditure"? These are elementary factors in calculations. Does he know the difference, and, if so, what is the difference?

It is not on a point of elucidation. The Finance Minister is embarking on a debate on capital expenditure. Dr Lee.

The Minister for Finance is barking up the wrong tree all the time.

On a point of order, Sir. Is it in order for the Member to pretend to be deaf and put on a earphone?

It is not a point of order at all. May I remind the Government Benches that it is best that we give a silent hearing to the Member for Queenstown?

Sir, on a point of order. The point of order is that the Opposition has accorded the Prime Minister due respect and silence when he spoke for three hours. May I request that the same consideration be given to the Opposition?

I have already indicated to the Government Benches that a silent hearing should be given to the Opposition.

He is again on the Barisan side; funny man!

As I say, Sir, if we add these figures of $3 million and $36 million to the $124 million calculated from the 40 per cent Federal revenue, we see that the Singapore Government has to pay the Federation every year $124 million plus $3 million plus $36 million, and that gives us a figure of $163 million.

Total rubbish!

This excludes the $150 million loan plus interest on that loan. Why such payment?

On a point of order, Sir.

Is it a point of order?

It is a point of order. The debate is now proceeding into detailed calculations of amounts due for various items of contribution. Sir, is it necessary for the Member for Queenstown to inflict all this drivel upon the House? Would it not be better if he distributes to hon. Members of the House a written statement showing how he arrives at the figure?

Order. [Interruption] Order. It is not a point of order at all. I think the Member for Queenstown has every right to speak in this Chamber. Dr Lee.

You see, Sir, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance come back after a drinking bout. Look at their faces!

Order. [Interruption] Order. I have made my ruling, and I ask the Member for Queenstown to proceed on the motion. Dr Lee.

I ask, Sir, why such payment?

Why such what?

You see, Sir, some people are a bit deaf.

You are talking rubbish.

This money is, of course, meant for the expansion of the armed forces. May I refer you, Sir, to Document II of Paper Misc. 4 of 1963? There it tells us that there is an estimated increase of as much as $200 million in expenditure on the armed forces annually.

Document II?

Document II of Paper Misc. 4 of 1963. It is paragraph 7 on page 12. An annual expenditure of $240 million has rightly been called a staggering increase - I use the correct words, I think. It says here, "staggering increase". Not only will this wasteful expenditure on the armed forces, as stated here, eat into the surplus and reduce the economic development, but it will also result in the imposition of increased taxes. This is the extra burden which the people of Singapore have been asked to pay. Malaysia is, therefore, only going to mean heavier expenditure on the armed forces. Such armed expansion cannot benefit the people. It will only profit the foreign monopoly capitalists and the arms industries.

They are getting their arms free.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance went to London not to fight for the interests of the people of Singapore. They went instead to sell out the rights of the people of Singapore. There is not a single item which the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have not almost completely given away in the negotiations with the Federation. Of course, the P.A.P. tries to cover up this sell-out. On the one hand, it denies political opponents the right and freedom of speech and assembly to expose them. On the other hand, the Prime Minister uses the whole State propaganda machinery to magnify out of all proportion the sops and the soothers he received from the United Kingdom to help him save face for signing the sell-out agreement in London. If we compare the ultimatum of the 22nd June, 1963, from the Federation to the Singapore Government, as set out in Document VIII in Paper Misc. 4 of 1963, and the conditions demanded by the Federation Government therein, with the final agreement as set out in Annex J signed in London, we will see then that the Singapore Government has given in to all the conditions and demands of the Federation, and more.

Rubbish! Substantiate that.

The Common Market terms in Annex J have already explained this. It takes away the free port status of Singapore without adequate safeguards for Singapore. Neither will Singapore industries be adequately protected.

Rubbish.

The Federation has control over the whole financial machinery. The powers reserved to the Federation Government in Customs and Excise and Income Tax as set out in the annexure to Document VIII are all categorically stated in Part I and Part II of the Annex to Annex J, exactly the same.

Rubbish.

The Singapore Government is only delegated power to be the tax collector of the Federation. Rubbish again?

Yes, you are talking nonsense. Why do you not sit down and go home?

Order.

The P.A.P. Government asked that this delegation of power be irrevocable. The Federation refused to accede to this request and the Federation has reserved power to withdraw even this delegated tax collecting power at any time. An hon. Member: Shame!

Also nonsense?

Absolute rubbish. Have you not read the whole documents?

Document VIII. All Federal taxes collected in Singapore are divided between the two Governments in the proportion of 60 per cent Singapore and 40 per cent Federation. The revenue is merely first paid into a separate fund. That is all. Is this again nonsense? The income tax attributable to the Federation but collected in Singapore is handed in toto to the Federation Government.

That is being done now. Do you not know that?

Is this again nonsense?

It is being done now. The yield belongs to them.

The income tax attributable to Singapore but collected in the Federation is divided 60 per cent Singapore and 40 per cent Federation. Is this also done now?

Cannot you understand that?

Even tax attributable to Singapore and collected by an agent in the United Kingdom is divided 60 per cent Singapore and 40 per cent Federation. Is this nonsense and is also being done now?

We are not in Malaysia yet. Cannot you understand that?

The provisions in clauses 5 and 6 of Annex J in common language, mean that, what is the Federation's is the Federation and what is Singapore's is also the Federation's. This is the philosophy of the P.A.P. It amounts to what is yours is mine, and what is mine is also mine. You lose everything.

You would give them 100 per cent income tax in your complete merger.

The Singapore Government also pays for Federal development projects in Singapore other than defence and internal security. This is seen in clause 7 of Annex J. (5) Again according to the ultimatum, the demand of the $50 million grant. This has now been changed to a loan of $150 million, $100 million of which is interest free. That is the only item in the Federation ultimatum of June 22nd which has been changed. But as we have already explained, this $150 million loan in development is, in fact, worth more than the $50 million grant. This is confirmed not only by the World Bank but also by businessmen in Singapore, and even by the Prime Minister himself, as I quoted a little while back. (6) Provide for a review as laid down in clause 8 of Annex J. Nothing much there. It is exactly the same. The final agreement is exactly as in the Federation ultimatum. Therefore, we can see that although the P.A.P. put up a sham front before going to London, it has ultimately surrendered to every one of the Federation's demands as set out in the ultimatum of 22nd June, 1963. Every one of them! In fact, there was no necessity for the P.A.P. team to go to London at all. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance might just as well have remained in Singapore and signed on the dotted line within the 48 hours stipulated in the Federation ultimatum. They need not have wasted all our money. They should not have used the people's money for travels, especially now that the P.A.P. pretends to express such concern for the welfare of the people. But, of course, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have other plans in mind. The stage had been set for the comedy and farce of turning a glaring sell-out into a triumph, and an out-and-out traitor into a so-called hero. The whole Government propaganda machinery had been geared to pave the way for crumbs from the table to be magnified out of all proportion to wonderful P.A.P. cakes. Let us see how the P.A.P. propaganda machine works. On the 8th July, 1963 -

Thank God this is your last speech [and proceeded to leave the Chamber].

He dare not even listen to me. He runs.

You talk so much rubbish that no one is going to listen to you.

Order. May I remind the Hon, the Minister for Finance that if he wishes to interject or to make a point of clarification, he should do so in this Chamber? Some hon. Members: Shame!

Order. Dr Lee.

On the 8th of July the Prime Minister wrote to the Federation listing certain points that required confirmation from the Federation Prime Minister. En this letter there are altogether eight points - firstly, secondly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly, sixthly, seventhly, eighthly, and lastly.

Like you.

There are so many points, and vivid testimonies to the extent of this confirmation can be seen in a six-line reply from Tun Razak who only confirmed one of the eight points raised by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The eight points are written in hundreds, even thousands of words. The Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation replied: `Dear Prime Minister, In the event of the Government of the Federation introducing -'.

What Paper is that?

I am referring. Sir, to the second letter in Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, which is a reply to the Prime Minister of Singapore's letter of 8th July sent from Park Lane Hotel. Well, he had a chance to stay in Park Lane Hotel anyway - for the last time maybe. And he received only a six-line reply from the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation. The reply reads as follows: `Dear Prime Minister, In the event of the Government of the Federation introducing legislation under Article 9 (3) of the Constitution of Malaysia imposing restrictions as between Singapore and the States of Malaya on the right conferred by Article 9 (2), I agree that such restrictions should be reciprocal. Yours Sincerely. (Signed)'. Sir, I do not want to waste the time of the House by reading to you what are firstly, secondly, thirdly, and so on. Anybody can buy this Paper and read the eight points listed by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The only answer was a six-line letter which, in fact, says yes to (1), no to (2), no to (3), (4) no, (5) no, (6) no, (7) no, (8) no, and lastly no. This is a real slap in the face of the P.A.P., a real slap in the face of the Prime Minister of Singapore. There is not even any mention of the other seven points. This only means that the Federation Prime Minister has not agreed to the other points raised by the Prime Minister of Singapore at the last minute. The Federation does not give in so easily as the P.A.P. The Prime Minister tries to play up on the 1,300 acres of land that he is supposed to have got back from the War Department of the U.K. Government. He wanted to create a picture of himself as a great anti-colonialist, a real anti-colonial hero. He said that he could have made Duncan Sandys kneel on his bended knees. That is what he said, "to get Duncan Sandys to kneel on his bended knees". He does not realise - foolish man - that he was being made use of by the British all the time. But, of course, everybody knows that the laugh is on the P.A.P. stooge. May I refer you, Sir, to the letter of 8th July, 1963, from Duncan Sandys of the Colonial Office to the Prime Minister of Singapore? I will summarise the letter. Duncan Sandys clarified the situation as follows: (1) Blakang Mati will not be released until August 1966, i.e. three years from now; not immediately but 1966, and by that time I do not know what will happen. An hon. Member: P.A.P. buried.

The P.A.P. will definitely be buried, of course. This is Blakang Mati!

Order. Is the letter dated 8th of July?

Yes, 8th July, 1963.

Will the Member please give the page number? Is it Paper Misc. 5?

It is too long a letter for me to read. It is Paper Misc. 5 of 1963. The pages are not numbered, but starting from the cover it would be page 13.

There are two letters dated 8th July. The Member is referring to the second letter of that date.

Yes, that is corect. I have already summarised that letter. It says that (1) Blakang Mati will not be released until 1966, which is three years from now. And (2) land in the Naval Base too will not be released. The U.K. Government would only have no objection to the wish of the Prime Minister that the Crown land now occupied by the British Military Forces in Malaya under the Defence Agreement be covered by a 30-year lease at a nominal rent of $1 per site. $1 per site, Mr Deputy Speaker, and on a 30-year lease. From this alone we can see that the Prime Minister of Singapore has got really nothing very much in this land deal. Long before the 30 years are out, the Naval Base should have been liquidated and the land handed back to the people of Singapore and Malaya. Similarly, Blakang Mati, which Singapore hopes to use as a free zone in the Common Market arrangements, will be released only after 1966, a long time from now. What happens to the Common Market before then? From now, that is, from the 1st of September. 1963, to 1966, where is the "Free Zone" going to be? In P.A.P. land? Then what of the other lands that Singapore is supposed to have got back from the United Kingdom? The letter of 8th July from Duncan Sandys tells us that the land in Fort Canning will be handed over to the Government of Singapore if and when the British Service authorities no longer need the area. "If and when" - and that too only on condition that an alternative site is provided for outside the City area plus compensation at current value paid for the buildings therein. Where then are the 1,300 acres? The lands that can be made available without condition to the Singapore Government are sites in Changi and Pulau Brani. The total area is only 176 acres. The large areas in Sembawang and Pulau Blakang Mati will be made available only on fixed conditions. Is this claim of the return of land not a sham? You can refer, Sir, to the annex of the letter from Duncan Sandys to the Prime Minister of Singapore. It is all stated very clearly here. So why is the P.A.P. trying to bluff the people of Singapore? The P.A.P. claims that it has obtained from the U.K. Government $10 million as payment for illegal occupation of Singapore land. But let us be clear what the money has been given for. It is not for rent or compensation for the land occupied by the military forces. Any rent payable is only a nominal rent of $1 per site. Mr Deputy Speaker, $1 per site. That is very cheap. Of course, as I say, the P.A.P. can only be tough and can only take tough action against people who have no guns, no arms, to fight back. But when it is a matter of the British Government, the P.A.P. shrink themselves into a shell. They dare not fight. They talk tough to the people. Why not talk tough to the British Government? Instead they kneel down before the British Government. But they want to tell the people of Singapore that they got Duncan Sandys on bended knees. Who would ever believe a thing like that?

Better have tea with Lord Selkirk!

Only licence money collected from farmers cultivating land, now illegally occupied by the British Military Forces, will be made payable to the Singapore Government. That amount cannot be very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The $10 million which the U.K. Government will make available to Singapore is only meant, as specifically mentioned in the letter, for, and I quote - it is a letter on the 8th of July. It is a very short letter: very concise and to the point -

Order. Mr Yong.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin] Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock midnight.