Hansard, 1963-07-31

Order for Third Reading read. 2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Local Government Integration Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

I take it that hon. Members are in possession of printed copies of the Bill. If they are not, the Clerk will, supply the copies. The Certificate is in order. Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." This Bill has been referred to Select Committee twice and as this Assembly is to meet for the last time on Thursday, a Certificate of Urgency has been obtained from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to enable proceedings on tie Third Reading of the Bill to be taken today which would not otherwise have been possible in view of the period of notice required by the Standing Orders. Sir, unanimity was reached in Select Committee on the amendments which have been made to the Bill. There were two important amendments: one to clause 5 to provide that City Council properties should vest in the Government on integration subject to existing rights and obligations; and the other to clause 179 to provide a period of limitation of three years for bringing proceedings against any breaches of the Ordinance and the Regulations. The rest of the amendments were minor drafting amendments. Sir, when this Bill becomes law, the legal work concerning the integration of the City Council departments with the Government departments will have been accomplished and the Local Government Ordinance of 1957 will have been repealed in toto. The winding up of the City Council and the Rural Board was one of the major planks in the platform of the P.A.P. in the 1959 general elections, and I am glad to report that this work has been completed today at a time when the P.A.P. Government is about to seek a fresh mandate from the people. A number of senior Government officials have spent a lot of time and study on the work of integration of the City Council departments and the Government departments, and I should like to place on record our deep appreciation of the good work they have done. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order read for resumption of debate on Question (30th July, 1963). "That 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 Malaysian 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 TAKING COGNIZANCE of the exchange of memoranda on the financial arrangements as in Paper 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 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.". -(The Prime Minister). Question again proposed. 2.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose last night, I was talking about the P.A.P. propaganda play-up on the supposed 1,300 acres of land that the Prime Minister of Singapore is supposed to have got back for Singapore from the British War Department. I was telling the House how he even said that if he had only stood his ground for another 24 or 48 hours he would have got Duncan Sandys down on his bended knees before the great anti-colonial P.A.P. hero. But the letter from Mr Duncan Sandys clearly states the position. Blakang Mati with its 658 acres will not be released until 1966 and the Sembawang land will not be released at all. Even Fort Canning will be released only if and when - these are very important words, Sir, "if and when" - the British do not want it and only after adequate compensation from the Government of Singapore has been paid. The Prime Minister claims he has obtained from the U.K. Government $10 million as payment for illegal occupation of Singapore land. But let us be very clear what the money is for. It is not for rent or compensation of the land occupied by the military forces. Any rent payable is only a nominal sum of $1 per site. The Singapore Government under the P.A.P. can be extraordinarily generous to the colonial Government - their colonial masters - but not to the people. And 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, Sir, cannot amount to very much. The $10 million which the U.K. Government will make available to Singapore is only meant "for raising, equipping and accommodating the Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment up to 31st August, 1963, when Singapore's financial responsibility ceases." Therefore, we hear right from the horse's mouth that the money is only for raising the Second Battalion, which we all know is to be used by the colonial Government for the suppression of the hopes and aspirations of the people in the region. P.A.P. propaganda has created the impression that the money is payment for compensation of land now occupied by the British military forces. But this is not so. The Prime Minister may say anything in his own letter to Mr Duncan Sandys, but the fact remains that the $10 million given by the U.K. Government is given only for the raising of the military forces. We hope the P.A.P. Government will have enough guts to tell the people all this. Tell them the truth. Do not hide. Anyway, however much the P.A.P. may want to hide, we will expose them. It is time that the P.A.P. realise that they cannot deceive the people all the time. At this point, we may ask, if the military forces really are in illegal occupation of Singapore land, why does the P.A.P. not use its police and courts to evict the British forces from occupation? The brave P.A.P. has done this often enough but only against poor, defence-less men and women who cannot fight back against the police and the troops. Would the P.A.P. dare to take action against the British forces? Sir, in the matter of the loan of $150 million for the development of the Borneo territories, the Prime Minister tries a face-saving device by asking that 50 per cent of the labourers who will be used for such development should be supplied from Singapore. He claims that these terms are written on the back of an envelope and allegedly signed by the Tunku. He claims that 50 per cent of labour, including even contractors, must come from Singapore in the use of the $150 million loan. Here we see the absurd position of the P.A.P. On the one hand, the Prime Minister said that he had "insisted" that the so-called common market terms be written into the Constitution and that nothing else would be good enough. He repeatedly said during his constituency tours that the M.C.A. in the Federation is trying to soak the people of Singapore and that, because of that, the common market arrangement must be written into the Constitution. Yet, on the other hand, the Prime Minister tells us that something scribbled, rather illegibly at that, on the back of an envelope is as good a bond in the conduct of affairs of State. Is this not evidence of the Gilbert and Sullivan cuckoo-land of Lee Kuan Yew and his Ministers? Sir, there is today published in the Nanyang Siang Pau a letter with the scribbled envelope in photostat for all to see. We can see a few words scribbled and clown below some more scribbling with big crosses all over the place. In a statement, it says that the Tunku's signature on the back of that envelope means only acceptance of the points for discussion and that the envelope cannot be treated as an official document. They even complained that the action of the Prime Minister of Singapore in raising this matter for open discussion is just a little hit too much. I wonder if you can see all this, Sir, from your place -

Order. Could the hon. Member say whose opinion he is quoting? Is it an authoritative opinion?

It is from the Federation Government. Sir,I will give you the translation of the headlines. "Tunku and Lee Kuan Yew - negotiations in England. Loan -" I think your interpreter may do it better than I can. Can I just read these words out in Chinese so that he can -

Order. I have already ruled that if the hon. Member wishes for a passage to be translated by the Simultaneous Interpreters from Mandarin into English, he ought to supply them with a copy in advance. Otherwise, he must do his best and translate that passage himself.

It says, Sir, the Tunku and Lee Kuan Yew -negotiations in England, and the signature about the loan is not an official document. The Federation Government does not recognise open discussion. Those are the headlines, Sir,If I translate the whole statement, it will take too long, so I will leave it at that. So we see the ridiculousness and the absurdity of the Singapore P.A.P. Government claiming all these lots of things. Last night, I remember I pointed out that the Prime Minister also claimed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - many, many points in his letter to Tun Razak. Tun Razak merely answered with a six-line letter to his hundreds and hundreds of words, indirectly, giving a slap in the face to the Prime Minister of Singapore. This is what has happened. Such being the case, it is no wonder that there is such a strong protest from Mr Donald Stephens, Chief Minister-designate of Sabah, and also from the Sarawak politicians about this 50 per cent labour. Mr Donald Stephens and the politicians in Sarawak are not slow in quoting the constitution on their State powers over immigration. On the other hand, Sir, search as we might, we cannot find anywhere in the Constitution this 50 per cent labour provision which the Prime Minister of Singapore wants us to accept. It is no wonder that we see the ridiculous situation in which we find the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation, Tun Razak, having to write on the 18th of July to the Prime Minister that there was no use to reply further to his letters, and was therefore returning all those letters to him. May I refer you, Sir, to Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, the last letter but one, dated 18th July? It is only a few lines and it is worth reading, Sir. It reads: `Dear Prime Minister, You will remember that shortly before the signing of the formal agreement for the establishment of Malaysia in London on 8th July. 1963, you forwarded a number of claims on behalf of the Singapore Government in the form of letters. As a result of the discussions between Tunku and yourself and the understanding reached between you it was agreed that there was no need to reply further to these letters. I am, therefore, returning them to you herewith. Yours sincerely, (Sgd.) TUN ABDUL RAZAK BIN HUSSAIN AL-HAJ'. If this is not a slap in the face, what is? Has the Prime Minister still face to tell us that he has got this and that for the people of Singapore? The whole trouble is that although he receives slaps and kicks from the Federation Ministers, the P.A.P. dare not answer back. In fact, they are depending on the Federation Ministers for their survival today. I will come to that later, Sir. All these letters returned and not even a reply or mention of the claim put forward by the Prime Minister of Singapore. It is pathetic that the Prime Minister has to swallow his pride with words, "I am happy to leave it at that" when he never got what he wanted to set. I refer you to the last letter of the same Paper, the last sentence of the second paragraph. He says: `I am happy to leave it at that.' Because he cannot have anything else -

Order. I hate interrupting the hon. Member, but I do not think he should just take a sentence out of context. I think the whole letter should be read.

I will, Sir. The letters reads: `I have your letter of 18th July. I do not think we can ignore the letter containing the eight points because the note which the Tunku signed said that the last part of this letter about the Inter-Governmental Committee was to be cancelled. This will make no sense unless the letter is in fact published. As for the other points, you have agreed to them, although they will not be enshrined in the Constitution. I am happy to leave it at that.'

That is better.

`The other two letters have been superseded by this signed note and can be ignored. I enclose copy of the letter which I wrote to the Tunku enclosing a photostat copy of the note which he signed on the night of 8th July.' From this, Sir, you can see that although the Prime Minister of Singapore lays so much stress on getting the terms of the Common Market enshrined, as he says, in the Constitution, yet now he is happy to leave it at that. Of course, the P.A.P. cannot get anything out of the Federation. What else can he do? He must of course leave it at that. This incident, however, reveals the desperate situation in which the Prime Minister found himself in London. He was pressured right and left and had to sign away the rights of the people of Singapore in order that he might still have a hope of saving himself. This incident also reveals another aspect of politics in Malaya. That the Prime Minister of the Federation could make such arrangements that binds a State without prior consultation with the State concerned, that is, if the Prime Minister of Singapore's allegation was true, shows how readily the Central Government ignores the wishes of the people of the various states of the proposed Malaysia. This is an example of great power chauvinism which will always place the interests of the Federation above the interests of other smaller States. However, to come back. This 50 per cent labour and contractors' claim of the P.A.P., if true, would, of course, be able to benefit Singapore a bit, just a little, and only a little. Only artisans and skilled workers will have the chance and they are not many in number in Singapore. But it is pertinent to ask, Sir, if indeed the $150 million loan was used for economic development, which we doubt, and so provide jobs for the people of Singapore, why then has the P.A.P. Government not used the same money in Singapore itself? Why have jobs to be provided for in Borneo, 1,000 miles away, and not here in Singapore itself? Would it not be possible then to use not 50 per cent labour, but 100 per cent labour from Singapore and really give thousands of jobs to our tens of thousands of unemployed? What is the answer to this? The P.A.P. will not be able to answer - Dr Goh Keng Swee shook his head.

He shakes his head, Sir. He cannot answer -

Point of clarification.

Point of clarification. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Sir, the four to five times the amount of the loan in Singapore today is for sheer capital development projects.

I do not know what explanation that is. I asked a simple question, Sir. I said if the money was really going to be used for development and for the employment of men in Singapore, why cannot the development projects be started in Singapore itself? Why have 50 per cent labour to be sent to Borneo when we can jolly well have 100 per cent labour provided in Singapore itself?

Point of clarification.

Yes. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

He does not understand. Can I make it so simple that a seven-year-old child can understand? $150 million spread over five years is $30 million a year. Would the Member for Queenstown agree to this? That is correct - $30 million a year. We are spending in Singapore on the various capital projects of the Government, of the Housing Board, of the Harbour Board and of the Public Utilities Board and so on, somewhere within five or six times that amount. So the answer is, we are spending more money than the money that we are lending to Borneo and Sarawak.

Unfortunately, the Minister for Finance has not answered my question.

Order. Let us get on with the debate. We are not in Committee. We are in the Assembly. I am sure the Minister for Finance in his time will answer all questions raised.

Sir, this is very important, because unemployment is daily growing more and more acute in Singapore as a result of P.A.P. incompetence. Forty thousand young men and women leave school every year. Where are the jobs for them? Why does the P.A.P. not use the $150 million to help our own young men and women? Why loan to Borneo? And why on such terms? Singapore borrows from the World Bank on terms which the people call humiliating but which the P.A.P. considers very fair. The World Bank, in giving a loan of only $45 million to Singapore, requires that the Singapore Government enact a special law in order to enable the World Bank to exact those humiliating terms from Singapore. What is worse, all our Municipal property worth many times the $45 million is mortgaged for that small puny loan. So what happens? If Singapore has to loan $150 million, surely some form of terms as imposed by the World Bank should he considered if the P.A.P. Government considers those terms fair and just. I might ask, Sir, if the P.A.P. Finance Minister realises what the interest of the $150 million will mean to the people of Singapore. We already know, Sir, on 5� per cent interest, the $100 million of the $150 million loan will fetch $55 million in ten years. But if Singapore has to borrow money - let us assume that it is only on 5� per cent; in fact, it is more - in order to use that very same money to lend interest free to another country, then in fact the loss incurred by the Singapore Government would be twice $55 million. It becomes $110 million in ten years.

I seem to recollect that the hon. Member did give these figures yesterday. I do not wish to stop the hon. Member because this is a debate of some importance. But may I remind him that he has now been speaking for five hours and if he can try to avoid repetition, we might be able to carry on with this debate more expeditiously.

No, Sir. I have no intention of repeating anything. But this is a new point which has just occurred to me on seeing the Finance Minister in front of me.

Order. I think my recollection is quite correct. I think these figures were given yesterday. If I am wrong, I apologise. But if I am right, that is repetition.

It would be repetition, Sir, only in regard to $110 million, as I was saying. But there is another aspect of it, Sir. The other aspect is this, It means to the people of Singapore this. There are 600,000 citizens in Singapore today. Try and divide $110 million by 600,000 citizens. If the Minister for Finance's arithmetic is good enough, he will find that it works out to $200 per citizen. That is the amount of money that each citizen will lose as a result of P.A.P. generosity with the people's money. Sir, this $200 means money from every one of us.

Go back to primary school.

Sir, we have seen how the P.A.P. has step by step surrendered the rights of the people of Singapore to the Federation. In so doing, the P.A.P. has sold Singapore completely down the drain, lock, stock and barrel The terms as laid down in the White Paper are unequal and unjust enough. But the terms in the Malaysia Agreement signed in London on the 9th July, 1963, are even more so. The Prime Minister himself knows this. That is why he said he signed because of the Tunku, hoping to use the Tunku's name as a shield against all criticism. And he also said over T.V. that he signed because he was asked to show face to Tan Siew Sin. "Oh, never mind," he said. He sounded very apologetic over T.V. Never mind with the people's money? I remember how when he similarly gave a T.V. show in his address to the Singapore Harbour Board workers. He related the story of how the Manager of the Singapore Harbour Board consulted him about a certain worker, and he said - it came very clearly over the radio and T.V. - "Sack him. The Manager consulted me and I said, `Sack him'." How very strong and powerful. "Sack him," he said. But not with the people's money. Not with the Tunku. He would not dare. The P.A.P. never really consider the interests of the people of Singapore. He does not give any thought to the interests of the people of Singapore. If he had done so, he would not have signed away the rights of the people of Singapore in this easy manner. Just to give face to this person or that person. However pretty a face may be, I am sure it is not worth so many millions of dollars. The Prime Minister had also boasted at one stage that he was not the Sultan of Brunei. Of course, different meanings can be read into those words; it depends on whether it is meant to be derogatory or otherwise. We have seen today that the Sultan of Brunei at least has the guts to say No. He has shown that he has more guts than our Prime Minister. He has enough guts to stand up for his rights and the rights of Brunei, in spite of all the pressure from the British. Has Lee Kuan Yew similarly withstood the pressure from the British and the Federation? He has not. Why has he not? The reasons are not far to seek. Lee Kuan Yew and company -

Order. I think Mr Lee Kuan Yew should be referred to in this Assembly as the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister and his Ministers could not fight back and had not the guts to fight back because they do not have the support of the people; and because they do not have the support of the people, they do not have the strength of the support of the people behind them. If the P.A.P. Ministers had, the result of the whole merger negotiations would have been entirely different. The British and the Federation negotiated on the strength of their guns and their jets. The P.A.P. has no such strength. It does not even have an audience for a P.A.P. mass rally, except when P.A.P. Ministers use Government pressure on certain people and when the Work Brigade boys are specially directed to attend these so-called rallies. The photos in newspapers that show a crowd listening to the Prime Minister speaking are all taken at wayangs and variety shows where in between items and scenes the Prime Minister comes out - An hon. Member: To perform.

Yes. He comes out to perform. That is the exact word. "Perform". He has a prepared audience all ready for him. But now we see the Prime Minister begging the Tunku for the combining of forces - that is one of the phrases I picked out from the exchange of letters - to fight his phantom enemy, the Communist bogey. How can there be a combination of forces when the Prime Minister himself is not a force and he does not represent a force? Sir, at this point, let me say something about the political force. A political force must represent a political movement that is really representative of the people. It must be deeply rooted in at least a section of the people whose interests it represents. It must be able to exercise influence over the people, lead them and mobilise them to action, so that the political aims and ideals may be realised. Today superficially the P.A.P. appears to be a "force". It is still the Government. Yes. It can still use the Government machinery for its party purposes. Yes. It can still pass laws in the Assembly, that is, so long as those laws correspond with the interests of a section of the Opposition in this Assembly. It can still monopolise the use of the radio and television. Yes. And it can still nut pressure on the Singapore newspapers. Yes. It can still use the Police Force on its political opponents. Yes. It can still make use of the civil service to help the Party work. Yes. It can use the courts to prosecute and persecute political opponents. Yes. It can even bring up fictitious and frivolous charges of breach of privilege of the House against political opponents. It can pressure people into "welcoming" the Prime Minister. It can order school students to line the streets. It can intimidate and bribe certain people into supporting the Government. But all power and strength comes from the control over the State machinery, and the P.A.P. has this power because of its control over the State machinery. Bu: iii terms of the real meaning of a political force, i.e. whether or not it represents the people, the P.A.P. is not a political force. The Prime Minister may bluster and posture, beat his chest, heat his drum, shout and talk tough, but he and the P.A.P. Ministers themselves know that the P.A.P. is not a force. It does not even dare hold a mass rally, as I have said. We could count the number of people who attended the P.A.P. mass rallies during the referendum campaign. The P.A.P. came to power by posing itself as a left-wing Party representing the interests of the workers of Singapore. It was largely due to the support of the workers of Singapore that the P.A.P. came to control the State machinery. But this posturing of P.A.P. Ministers was soon exposed and the P.A.P. has completely betrayed the people who brought it into power. But so long as the system of one-man-one-Vote exists and still operates, however inadequately, those who put the P.A.P. into power can similarly take away that power from the P.A.P. political opportunists. It is just a question of time. That is why the Prime Minister condemned this one-man-one-vote system in his talk to the civil servants last year. That system still works however inadequately today, and it will become the undoing of the P.A.P. And in spite of the P.A.P. Ministers' love for power, they will not be able to prevent this power from being taken away from them. Knowing this, the P.A.P. Ministers have nightly been sleeping with Machiavelli to scheme out plans to keep themselves in power. Hence the undemocratic clause 29: hence the dishonest and undemocratic Referendum: hence the amendments to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance; hence the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill. Both these Bills have now been defeated. But despite all the Prime Minister's blustering about going back to meet the people, the P.A.P. Ministers are still doing their best to cling on to power for as long as possible, because they know that the moment they lose control of the State machinery, they will not be able to use the power of the State represented by the police, troops, the courts, the prisons; and this is very important, Sir, the power of deprivation of citizenship and the power of banishment. When that time comes, the P.A.P. Ministers will sink into oblivion, buried by history - according to the words of the Prime Minister. It will be the end of an era - again the words of the Prime Minister - the P.A.P. era of arrogance, bully, and Fascist dictatorship. The P.A.P., as I have said, is not a political force. The Ministers know it and they are making full use of all the opportunities to travel about and to live in grandeur while the going is still good, so to speak. The moment general elections take place, the P.A.P. Ministers will be habis. The Ministers will have to look for new jobs, and the Back-benchers will have to find new moorings. That will be the end of the P.A.P. Sir, in terms of real political strength, the Alliance is today stronger than the P.A.P. The Alliance has consistently represented the reactionary forces in Singapore and in the Federation, whereas the P.A.P. Ministers are only opportunists who came to power on the Left-wing support of the workers, and who for the last two years have been clinging on to power on Right-wing support. You will remember, Sir, last night the Prime Minister talked very glibly of the four forces; naming the British Government, the Federation Government, the Singapore Government, and the Communists as the four forces. I do not know, Sir, but I think he must have been talking through his hat because that is mere wishful thinking. There are only two forces as far as we can see in this country or anywhere. They are the forces of the colonialists and imperialists and the forces of the people, not the P.A.P. Today it is the reactionary forces which are making use of the P.A.P. and not the other way round. The P.A.P. thought of itself as being indispensable to the Left at one time. That has been proved false. Similarly the P.A.P. wants to tell the British who are the real force behind the Malaysia scheme, that the P.A.P. is indispensable in the fight against the Communist bogey. But however much the British may want to protect the P.A.P. for just a little while perhaps, we have already seen in this House that the moment the reactionaries have done with the P.A.P. - The Minister for Culture (Mr Rajaratnam): To join you.

- they will leave the P.A.P. to fend for itself, and will be doing everything they can indirectly to bring the P.A.P. down. We have repeatedly said that the P.A.P. Government today is a Government only on sufferance. Without the reactionary prop, the P.A.P. will tumble just like a house built with a pack of cards. The P.A.P. has no solid foundation, no reinforced concrete, no piling in its foundations, and it is going to fall, and will certainly fall, very soon. A matter of one or two months maybe, and that is all the Ministers can hope for. The reactionary forces have made use of the P.A.P. The Prime Minister thinks he can calculate but he forgets all the time - to use his own words - the electronic computer which has 300 years of experience of colonial domination and exploitation behind it. This electronic computer is all the time directing affairs quietly and unobtrusively behind the scenes, manipulating the stooges and the puppets without even letting these stooges and puppets realise that they have been manipulated. The electronic computer encourages the feeling of egoism and opportunism of self-centred politicians, so that they begin to have the illusion that what they were made to do and what they were in fact directed to do were creations of their own. Thus it is that the Prime Minister thinks that Malaysia is his own creation. There is a saying, Sir, that those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

You are.

It seems to me that the P.A.P. Ministers must be completely mad with nuts loose here and there beneath their skulls for them to harbour such illusions that they themselves had suggested Malaysia. But the ridiculous position of the P.A.P. today is this: although the P.A.P. Ministers have done everything possible to please the Federation, they are nevertheless not trusted by the Federation. The Federation prefers to entrust its interests to their own friends in the S.P.A. at one time and the Alliance now in Singapore. And however much the P.A.P. may try to split the Alliance, one component from another component, the M.C.A. from the U.M.N.O. by denigrating the M.C.A. and the ex-S.P.A. and praising to the skies the U.M.N.O. and especially the Tunku, Tun Razak and Dr Ismail, the P.A.P. will not be able to succeed in gaining the favour of the Federation. If anything is left behind after the big feast, the crumbs will be left to the P.A.P. Ministers. The P.A.P. Ministers will only be able to get the crumbs from the table, but unfortunately for them even these crumbs may not be given to them, who are waiting around the table with open mouths, like dogs for food from their master. The Federation knows the true character of the P.A.P. Ministers because opportunists are opportunists. If the P.A.P. opportunists can betray the Left-wing movement and the workers who put them into power, so these same opportunists can one day similarly betray the Right-wing and the reactionaries if the P.A.P. Ministers find it necessary to do so in order to cling to office. The P.A.P. is in a dilemma because of its own opportunism. On the one hand, it is rejected by the working class movement of Singapore, and indeed of the whole Malaysia region. We saw how the P.A.P. was expelled by the Conference of Socialist Parties in January 1962 in Kuala Lumpur. On the other hand, the P.A.P. is not trusted by the reactionaries and communal forces in the region although made use of by them. That is the tragedy of the P.A.P. It does not represent the interests of any particular section of the people. Today, the P.A.P. may accelerate promotions, give medals to the civil servants and praise them. But other than for a small number, the P.A.P. will not be able to get their support. The P.A.P. remains a force only because of its temporary - that is a very important word - temporary - control of the State machinery. The P.A.P. is legally in power, but it has already been morally discredited and rejected by the people. Their position is not unlike the position of the Lim Yew Hock Government just before the 1959 elections. Therefore, knowing the situation, the P.A.P. Ministers use Machiavellian methods and hope to survive in an unsettled and unstable political situation and they survive by their skill in brinkmanship by playing one political force against another. But. Sir, opportunistic politics cannot last. History is not created by the so-called genius or brilliance of a few leaders. Opportunist leaders do not represent the people. They are on the stage for a while and they disappear. Opportunists do not represent the hopes and aspirations of the people. From this, we can understand why the P.A.P. is cracking its so-called cleverness and brilliance to twist and turn and to distort. But one falsehood after another of the P.A.P. has been exposed. Their citizenship bluff was exposed. They have to change the name "Federal National" into the words "Malaysian Citizenship (Singapore)". It is becoming more and more clear today to the people of Singapore that Malaysian Citizenship (Singapore) is not the same as Federation Citizenship. In fact, a Singapore citizen not only gets second-class citizenship in the P.A.P. merger deal, but he also stands in grave danger of losing his original Singapore citizenship altogether. This is one aspect of the great sell-out of the P.A.P. In the P.A.P. merger proposals we do not have a common citizenship. I have amply proved this last night. The Federation, Sabah and Sarawak citizens are in one group. The Singapore citizen stands isolated in another group. Then where is the common citizenship? Where is the national unity? But, of course, the P.A.P. Ministers are very clever bluffers and they even bluffed the Member for Anson. But anyway, we can take heart that this P.A.P. bluffing will be gone forever very soon. The Prime Minister says we share a common fate with the Federation. Yes. I think we will. But in the present context, only insofar as our fate will be tied to the fate of the Federation if the unjust merger is pushed through. But we shall not share a common political life. The citizenship provisions and the restrictions on the freedom of travel will see to that. We shall share a common fate in the respect that we in Singapore will not be in a position to decide our own future. Sir, we are part of Afro-Asia. We stand for neutrality and anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism. But the Federation policy, for example, is tied to the chariot wheel of Western colonialism and imperialism. Yet because of the merger and Malaysia, we become tied hand and foot, at least temporarily, and we cannot decide our own future as regards foreign policy. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis are entirely different from the P.A.P. We stand on the side of the workers, the exploited and down-trodden. We represent their interests. They are part of the force that will decide the future of mankind. We have not misjudged any situation as the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister gives himself too much credit. This is of course because he is arrogant as usual and imagines himself to be more clever, more brilliant, than the rest of mankind. We, on the other hand, practise humility and we recognise our limitations. We recognise also that forever we shall be students of politics. We are learning every day. But we also see the situation very clearly. We see the future very clearly. We know what is coming. We see the march of history. We see history progressively going forward from slavery to feudalism, from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to socialism. This is inevitable. The Prime Minister does not know how to use the word "inevitable", Sir. This is inevitable. History has proved it. Malaysia is not inevitable. That Malaysia's "inevitability" is all propaganda. The P.A.P. says this to take away the will and the fighting spirit of the people. The P.A.P. hopes to use this word "inevitable" to take away the fighting strength and resistance of the people against neo-colonialist Malaysia. But Malaysia's downfall is inevitable; just as the fall of colonialism and imperialism is inevitable; just as the triumph of socialism is inevitable; and just as the realisation of the hopes and aspirations of the people is inevitable: just as the victory of the people over all reactionary forces represented in a small way today in Singapore by the P.A.P. is inevitable. That is the meaning of the word "inevitable". The P.A.P. has been using the word wrongly. The P.A.P. talks of chopping off of heads. But history is not decided by the chopping off of heads. Millions of people have sacrificed their lives in the past and millions of people will sacrifice their lives in the future. But history marches forward. The march may be slower at times and may be faster at times. But history marches forward and advances, and no force on earth, much less the puny little P.A.P. infantile opportunistic force, can stop such advance. Today, the national liberation movement is steadily advancing and growing in strength the world over. We have seen heads chopped off and put on spike poles in Angola. When I was in London, I saw special pictures of how the Portuguese colonialists and imperialists have chopped off the heads of the freedom fighters in order to frighten the people. But today in Angola the lighting is still going on, and more and more of the people in Africa are backing the people in Angola helping them to drive out the Portuguese imperialists. Chopping off heads will not stop history. We have seen more unbelievable atrocities in other colonial countries, but history advances and socialism must inevitably triumph. We have, therefore, not misjudged the situation. It is opportunists like the Prime Minister and his other Ministers who have misjudged the situation, because they falsely imagine that a couple of individuals can thwart the march of history. We have absolute confidence in the future, and we know that we will win, whatever the P.A.P. may try to do. The future lies with the people. Let the P.A.P. Ministers themselves not misjudge the situation. Understanding the predicament the P.A.P. is in, we also understand why the P.A.P. acts in the manner it does. As I have said, the P.A.P. has not the mass support. It knows it has sold the rights of the people of Singapore. But for its own survival, it needs to cover the sell-out somehow, with hope of gaining the support of the people. Hence the frantic preparation of the P.A.P. propaganda machinery to give the traitor a hero's welcome and to build up the Prime Minister as a fighter for the interests of the people. But this farce is now completely exposed. All Singapore knows that the P.A.P. is going down as a result of the sell-out. I will not speak very much longer, Sir. Today Malaysia exerts an oppressive shadow over the whole of South-East Asia. Pro-Malaysia salesmen shout deceptive slogans of prosperity, happiness, national unity, independence, stability and national security through Malaysia. But we have seen very clearly before our eyes that instead of prosperity we have promises of extra burdens and extra taxes. We have to give thousands of millions of dollars away. The Johore Causeway will remain a barrier to freedom of travel and also to trade, if, at any time, the Federation decides to levy production taxes and extra duties on goods produced in Singapore. Instead of happiness, there is repression and widespread bitterness and sorrow over the land. No greater issue divides the people of our land today than the issue of Malaysia. Instead of national unity, there is now national disunity. Instead of independence we get neo-colonialism. Instead of stability and national security, there is strife and tension, and today's summit meeting in Manila will decide whether or not there will be further threats to peace in South-East Asia. At present Malaysia can be born only on the support of British might. But without the support of the people, such military imposition on the people will not make Malaysia work. Malaysia cannot succeed, therefore. Like the West Indies Federation and the Central African Federation, Malaysia must inevitably fail. Pro-Malaysia salesmen hope to make people believe that Malaysia is formed to fight Communism. They say that only the Communists oppose Malaysia. This is, of course, the pet excuse used by the colonialists and their stooges for every aggressive action of theirs against staunch anti-colonialist political opponents. And to justify their Fascist and repressive actions against those who oppose Malaysia, and especially those of us in the Barisan Sosialis, the British colonialists and their P.A.P. stooges have invoked the Communist bogey. But curiously enough, those who oppose Malaysia most fiercely and have even resorted to armed struggle against Malaysia are the Malays in Brunei. And no one has ever called them Communists. From this alone, we can see how ridiculous and absurd the P.A.P. charges are. But, of course, the P.A.P. Ministers are experts at telling falsehoods. I remember Senator Tan of the Federation saying this of the Prime Minister: that "he is capable of saying anything as long as it serves his purpose. Nothing is too low for him," i.e. our Prime Minister. However, to come back. Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot designed to protect British military, political, and economic interests in the region. It is also designed to frustrate the hopes and aspirations of the people for self-determination, democracy, and freedom. It does not represent the spontaneous desire of the people in the region for a union. It is a plan imposed from above on the people and intended to make the whole of South-East Asia a strategic bloc in the service of Western colonial domination and exploitation. Malaysia is only the political aspect of the British Far East Unified Command which covers exactly the same area of Malaysia. In fact, Malaysia will only be an extension of the working room of SEATO. Malaysia, therefore, in fact, is a part of the SEATO bloc. In this connection, Sir, I must refer you to Article VI of the Malaysia Agreement, page 2 of Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963. This Article is the essence of Malaysia. Let me read it out, Sir. `The Agreement on External Defence and Mutual Assistance between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Federation of Malaya on 12th October, 1957, and its annexes shall apply to all territories of Malaysia, and any reference in that Agreement to the Federation of Malaya shall be deemed to apply to Malaysia, subject to the proviso that the Government of Malaysia will afford to the Government of the United Kingdom the right to continue to maintain the bases and other facilities at present occupied by their Service authorities within the State of Singapore and will permit the Government of the United Kingdom to make such use of these bases and facilities as that Government may consider necessary for the purpose of assisting in the defence of Malaysia, and for Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia. The application of the said Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Annex F to this Agreement (relating primarily to Service lands in Singapore).' Sir, this is the essence of the Malaysia Agreement. If this Article VI was not in this Agreement, there would be no Malaysia. That is important. And for the Prime Minister to say that he does not know the meaning of "neo-colonialism", I would suggest that he go back to school and learn politics all over again. This Agreement was signed in London on the 9th July, and this Article extends the Anglo-Malayan Defence Treaty to the whole Malaysia region. It gives the U.K. Government the right -mind you, Sir, the right to imperialists thousands of miles away - to maintain bases and other facilities in the five territories for so-called U.K. defence for which the British Far East Unified Command was specially created. If we want to understand Malaysia, Sir, we must look at it from this perspective. Then immediately we can understand why all the neutral countries in Afro-Asia are opposed to Malaysia. And we will immediately understand why Indonesia is opposed to Malaysia. We will also understand why Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, Italy, France, and, of course, the United States, support Malaysia. Then we understand everything. All the pieces in the jig-saw puzzle fit into place and the whole picture is presented right before you. However, within the proposed Malaysia region itself, opposition to Malaysia has already resulted in the Brunei uprising and guerilla warfare over all Borneo. The Government of the Federation will have to expand very greatly their armed forces, and that is why Singapore will have to pay so much annually to the Federation. That is why Singapore is compelled to loan - a very nice word euphemistically - to "loan" $150 million to the Federation not so much for the development of the Borneo territories as for the expansion of defence - I think it should be offence - capital expenditure. It should not be defence, in fact. For their own selfish interests today, the P.A.P. Ministers have signed the Malaysia Agreement which seeks to push Singapore into the Federation bound hand and foot. We have opposed this all along but the P.A.P. claims that it has a mandate from the people. The P.A.P. claims that the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 has been passed in this Assembly, and that it has later been endorsed by the people in the sham referendum. Of course, this is not really true. The P.A.P. has the so-called mandate only by the most undemocratic and dishonest means. But even if what the P.A.P. has claimed was true, that claim cannot hold true any longer today. The P.A.P. has legal authority to negotiate on behalf of Singapore only within the limits clearly defined in the White Paper. Any variation and any departure from this White Paper and from the explanations and assurances given by the P.A.P. Ministers therefore cannot be valid. It becomes ultra vires in many ways of speaking. I have already pointed out the many variations and departures from Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961 in this Malaysia Agreement. The P.A.P. has no moral right and even legal right to vary and depart so very far from the White Paper. Any wide variation and departure especially involving totally new principles must first have a mandate from this House. We had a debate on the progress of the financial talks last month following a statement from the Prime Minister. But the P.A.P. did not have a mandate from this House to vary and depart from the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. Now since there are wide variations and departures from the White Paper and since the P.A.P. did not have a mandate from the House to vary and depart from the White Paper, therefore, it must be condemned for signing such an Agreement. If these variations and departures had been advantageous to the people of Singapore, it would have been easier to accept such variations and departures. But these variations and departures are completely to the disadvantage of the people of Singapore. In fact, more and more of our powers have been taken away and all the provisions in the proposed Constitution merely seek to further enslave the people of Singapore. All the safeguards, for example, for the protection of citizenship acquired by the people not born in Singapore are now gone and Singapore citizens can lose their own original Singapore citizenship if at any time the Federation politicians decide to cancel the so-called automatic Malaysian citizenship (Singapore). Then emergency powers are given to the Federation to impose wartime emergency regulations and restrictions on Singapore even when all is peace and quiet and when there is no war, no external aggression and no internal disturbance in Singapore. Then the people of Singapore have been squeezed and soaked. Singapore has to pay more than $150 million annually to the Federation in order that Singapore may serve the Federation. A $150 million loan is given almost completely interest free to the Federation, and more likely than not the $150 million will also be gone with the wind. In return, Singapore has obtained a common market in which almost all the advantages are on the Federation side. Singapore industries will not have the protection and safeguards for expansion. In fact, the common market in which the Prime Minister has such great faith will not encourage and promote local industries. It will merely facilitate exploitation of Singapore by foreign capital through the benefits of pioneer status, the exploitation of comparatively cheap local labour, and the escape of heavy taxes in the countries of the foreign monopoly capitalists. This is the neo-colonialism which the P.A.P. does not seem able to understand. But what is worse, the free port status of Singapore will be almost completely lost in 12 years from now. This can only mean loss of trade, especially the tourist trade, with increased cost of living for the people and even loss of employment for the thousands now gainfully employed. The exchange of letters between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government and the Singapore Government and the British Government contained in Misc. 5 of 1963 clearly states the position. The P.A.P. Government cannot bluff the people that its own claims have become part of the agreement when they in fact have not been agreed to by the Federation and the British Governments. The Malaysia Agreement is therefore completely unacceptable to this House and to the people of Singapore. En fact, the whole Agreement is a sell-out of all the rights and interests of the people of Singapore. The Agreement must therefore be repudiated and torn up. The constitutional future of Singapore affects each and every one of us in the country. The people of the country must have their basic rights of self-determination to decide their own constitutional future. The 31st of August, 1963, is the date that has been set aside by the powers-that-be for the incorporation of Singapore into the proposed Malaysia. The P.A.P. conducted a sham referendum which did not, and could not, reflect the will and desire of the people freely expressed. The people of Singapore must therefore be given the opportunity to truly and genuinely decide on their own future before the date set down for the inauguration of Malaysia. The P.A.P. Government has been defeated on three occasions in the past few days and the Leader of the House has already solemnly said that there will soon he a general election. It is clear that the P.A.P. cannot conduct a fair and democratic election. The sham referendum is proof of that. The recent defeat of both the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill and the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill further prove that all Opposition Parties cannot trust the P.A.P. to conduct a fair election. The general election must therefore be conducted and supervised by a neutral body. We suggest that such a neutral body be the United Nations. As a precondition to the general election, of course, all political detainees must be unconditionally released and all political activities in Singapore normalised. The basic rights and freedoms of speech and publication, association and assembly must be restored. Once the people have elected their new representatives, these newly elected representatives of the people can then hold fresh constitutional talks with the United Kingdom Government. That, Sir, is the way to allow the people of Singapore a chance to decide on their own future. We ask the House to let the people decide. A few last words before I close. We want to warn the P.A.P., the Alliance and the British that the arrests on 2nd February cannot and will not help the reactionaries and the colonialists. As I have already pointed out, history advances, history marches forward. No force can prevent or block this march forward of history. Arrests now or at any future time will not be able to help the P.A.P. Government to cling to office any longer. Many of the Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis will be prosecuted in the court by the P.A.P. Government.

Order. There can be no reference to that case in this Assembly. It is sub judice.

I have no intention of referring to the actual court -

Order. There can be no mention of the case.

Whatever it be, the P.A.P. must realise that they are now a Government only on sufference. They must not usurp the power of the people. The power must be returned to the people, and the people must decide their own future. The people's future cannot be left to a few individuals although they may think that they are super brilliant people. At any stage of history, the people must decide. Let the P.A.P. Ministers and also P.A.P. Back-Benchers remember this. Sir, I beg to move my amendment* appearing on the Order Paper.

The original Question was as appears in item 2 of the Order Paper. Since which an amendment has been moved, * to leave out from "1961)" in line 4 to the end and insert - "this House noting that the agreement made between the People's Action Party Government, the United Kingdom Government and the Federation of Malaya Government in London on 9th July, 1963, is at variance with Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961, (i) condemns the Government for signing such an agreement; (ii) demands that the Government immediately repudiate the said agreement; and (iii) urges that a general election be held fairly conducted under the supervision of the United Nations in order that the people may elect their new representatives for fresh constitutional talks with the United Kingdom Government.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." As hon. Members do know, there is going to be a guillotine on this motion and I propose to permit the leading speakers of the Opposition sections to speak first - a speaker from the Alliance, a speaker from the U.P.P. and the independent Members, and thereafter the Government side will be given an opportunity of replying. 4.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the Member for Queenstown, he took the Floor yesterday at 5.30 p.m. and maintained it up till midnight, which is, excluding the dinner break, I think 5� hours. And this afternoon from 2.30 to 4.15 p.m., which is a little under two hours, which makes it 7� hours -

Order. The arithmetic from this side is 6� hours.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged for the arithmetic - 6� hours. I think he has fallen short of his past performance, which I think exceeded that by one hour. But anyway, listening to the Member for Queenstown - and I have listened to him very carefully when I have been in the Chamber - I was reminded of the statement the Hon, the Prime Minister made just before he set off to London for the constitutional talks. I hope I am not misquoting him, but if I remember correctly, he said, "I shall out-talk them; I shall out-squat them." Now, I think the Member for Queenstown has out-talked the Prime Minister in the length of time spoken. Does that make the Member for Queenstown the victor? I hardly think so, Mr Speaker. Now, coming back to the motion before the House. Before I deal with the merits of the motion, I wish to make one matter very clear indeed to the House as a whole, Mr Speaker, Sir, more particularly to the Government as the Government seem to be in some danger of getting their own party interests mixed up with what, in my view, are national interests. Sir, my Party, the Alliance, and I personally have wholeheartedly been behind the People's Action Party in the matter of Malaysia. We have been so wholeheartedly behind the Government in this - and I recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I appeared on the same platform as the Prime Minister did, much to the disgust of some Members of my own Party. I was almost on the mat for it. It was by the skin of my teeth that I escaped censure proceedings. I escaped it on the basis that this was a national matter. We from the Alliance and the P.A.P. spoke the same language in terms of effect, the words might have been different. But in terms of effect, we spoke the same language. There was no divergence of views on this. Therefore, I really cannot understand why the P.A.P. Government, after Malaysia has almost been reached, agreements concluded and we are on the verge of Malaysia, should accuse the Alliance Party now of being against Malaysia. Surely, no one in his right senses in Singapore, no one in his right senses in the Federation, no one in his right senses in the three Bornean territories can ever think that we in the Alliance can ever be against Malaysia. Are the P.A.P. Government out of their senses? Or are they trying to make political capital out of this? I give full credit to the Prime Minister for having brought the ship of Malaysia safely through. Full credit, 100 marks - I said it then, I say it now openly, and I will continue to say it even after Malaysia. We in the Alliance provided him the elbow room during the referendum time to perform adequately. The stage was set, the Prime Minister was on the stage. We left it uncluttered for him in order to give him plenty of elbow room, and I think the Prime Minister understands what I mean when I say we gave him elbow room. If we had been harassing him on the stage, if we had been elbowing him from the stage, we would not have got the 70 per cent votes that we did in fact get in Singapore. So never let the P.A.P. Government forget that Malaysia was not a party affair. It was a joint affair by the people of Singapore who believed in Malaysia. No political statement by the P.A.P. Government at this juncture on the threshold of merger saying that the Alliance is against Malaysia will help them out. I am sorry that the P.A.P. Government should at this late stage try, because of certain actions which they have taken, which I propose to explain to the House, to suggest that we are against Malaysia or merger -

It is not true.

Of course, it is true. The radio has said so; T.V. has said so; the papers are saying so. T.V., the radio, the papers belong to the Government - An hon. Member: Not the papers.

They do, Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret to say. If you turn on the news at any time during the night or morning, you will hear that the Prime Minister said this and the Prime Minister said that, but why did be say that? It was because somebody made a speech to which the Prime Minister replied. But does the radio report the speech which motivated the Prime Minister into making his reply? No. It is forgotten; that is not reported. But the whole of the speech of the Prime Minister is given. The other side of the story is not given at all. The means of propaganda is at the disposal of the Government and, therefore, it appears that they are going to use it to hammer all the other political Parties out of existence. Mr Speaker, Sir, what induces the P.A.P. Government to say that we are against Malaysia? What is it? Because last Thursday, when the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance were away, and I think since we are in a truthful mood, we might as well say straight now that without the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, the P.A.P. Front Bench is quite pathetic, Mr Speaker, Sir. They really cannot think properly. They cannot react at all. Because the Prime Minister and his able aide, the Minister for Finance, were not here, they got into a complete and utter mess over the Federal Elections Bill. If anybody is responsible for this present impasse, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the election of seats to the Federal Parliament, then it is the P.A.P. Government. What did we object to in that Bill, Mr Speaker? Two points of objection were taken. The first point was procedural; the second point was one of substance. The procedural point was that the presentation of the Bill to the House was wrong, that it should have come after this debate. To my mind, that was a valid point. The second point was that the P.A.P. Government was going to draw the wards in the way they could, the way they wanted. Naturally, do you think we are going to allow that? We are political Parties. We want political power just as much as they do. We are not babes in the political wood. We know that if we give the Government the power to delineate the wards, they could draw them in such a way that they would get almost all the 15 seats. It is simple. Let them allow me to draw the wards, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I will draw them in such a way that the Alliance will get the greatest number of seats. Give it to the Barisan, they will do it likewise. Give to the Member for Hong Lim, and he will do it likewise. Each of four groups can draw the wards in such a way that each group can get a majority of seats. The fair thing to do is to put the drawing of the wards in an impartial body. The Deputy Prime Minister recognised this in his statement to the House. He said, "Yes, on second thoughts I now realise that 5-4 is not fair; make it 4-4," showing that at last the light was beginning to dawn. The Member for Hong Lim asked, what about the Chairman? The Chairman is important. If the P.A.P. Government had asked for or if they had listened to our suggestions, we might have suggested to them to get an independent Chairman from the Federal Elections Commission in Kuala Lumpur. Let him preside, and if there is an equality of votes on any issue, give him a single casting vote. We would be happy. The ball is now at the Government feet. They can kick it into the Federal Elections Bill goal or not as they please. So let them not blame the Alliance for making it not possible for Singapore to be represented in the Federal Parliament. Might I say this to the Government? Let them draw these election boundaries in a fair and reasonable manner. Mr Speaker, Sir, you know this business of introducing Bills, making amendments here, there and everywhere piecemeal and getting the Assembly into a state of non-understanding - that is the phrase I am thinking of. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill which has now been stymied, but which still remains on the statute book with the option to the Government to reintroduce it with suitable amendments if they want to. So let not the blame lie with the Opposition any more. I hope that responsible organs which are allowed in the Assembly in order that what is said in this Assembly might be carried out to the public at large do their public duty. Instead of suppressing it, omitting it and saying "Oh, we forgot. We did not think that was important," I am suggesting, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is absolutely vital. Let nobody misunderstand this. You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in this Bill, there is no provision as to how the electoral boundaries would have been drawn - a serious omission by the drafting side of the State Advocate-General's Department. They bring in amendments to the Schedule. They set out the Schedule, then set out the amendments that they are going to make to the Ordinance. On the First Reading all the amendments were not in. On the Second Reading, amendments were brought in very cleverly to section 8 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Now, section 8 reads: `The Minister may from time to time by notification in the Gazette specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions of the island for purposes of election under this Ordinance.' Originally, Mr Speaker, Sir, when this Ordinance was passed, the phrase was "the Governor may from time to time". You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that elections were first introduced in Singapore in the colonial days when power was with the Governor with his Legislative Council. Parties there were. But the deciding factor, the person who decided the electoral boundaries, was the Governor. In so far as Parties were concerned, the Governor was not interested. So he played cricket, not golf. He did not hook the hail. He played cricket. And he played it fair according to certain recognised principles. There are certain recognised principles when one draws electoral boundaries. I know them. I sat on one of them. Mr Thomson was the Chairman. They know Mr Thomson. They trust him. I also trust him. He is a perfect gentleman. The first thing we did on that Committee was to agree on the principles on which the divisions should be made. All the Parties agreed that there should be certain principles applicable in the matter of delineation of wards. Having agreed on those principles, each of us put our suggestions based on those principles. That is how we did it. In course of time, complete self-government. Now the word "Governor" has been changed to "Minister". The Minister does not play cricket. He does not play any game at all. But he plays the party game. So what is the Minister going to do? "The Minister may from time to time by notification in the Gazette specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions of the Island for purposes of elections to the Federal Parliament." Mr Speaker, Sir, he is not in this to do us justice as we think it should be done. I would not blame him, if he drew it the way he wanted to; of course, I would not. If we were fools enough to give him that statutory power, why should he not use it? Surely, the Hon, the Finance Minister would do it. The thing is we caught you out. We were sufficiently -

Order. The Member for Farrer Park in his excitement is forgetting that he should address the Chair. I think he has made his point, and be should not labour too much on it.

I am sorry. The point k that we want to make our position quite clear, because the position we are going to take today - I hope the Government are not going to use their mass media of propaganda to distort the stand we are going to take - is what we think is in the best interests of Singapore, in our view. They might not agree. The Member for Anson might not agree. The Barisan might not agree. But, in our view, the stand we are going to take is completely fair and completely just now, today and tomorrow. An hon. Member: What is it?

It will come in good time. Sir, when this Assembly debated the White Paper we were behind the Government. We voted with them. And the White Paper after the resolution of the Assembly was their mandate for Malaysia. Anything outside that mandate was not within the competence of the Hon, the Prime Minister and his able Finance Minister to talk about in London. Even if they did talk about it, they should have come back to us for approval and then had them embodied in the Constitution. The whole presentation of these papers in the debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say, has been pathetic.

Hear, hear!

Absolutely pathetic. This is a serious debate in which the future of the country is being considered and the decision taken here will tie it up with the rest of our national life and beyond it. Yet the way in which the vital documents have been presented to this Assembly is absolutely pathetic. I might say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the procedure adopted for the presentation of these papers in the Assembly, I think, has been determined by this - that they did not want us to read the documents.

Hear, hear!

Documents after documents came to us on the last day, Mr Speaker, and amendments on top of amendments. Imagine our predicament. There are some more to come, I am told. The whole story has not been told yet. And we are asked to consider this rationally and give a fair and reasonable appraisal of the situation in such a manner that we can all come to some reasonable conclusion on this. What is this game the Government are playing? Are they pushing us into something which they think we are going to go in without our knowledge? I think I have spotted some defects. But I do not claim I have spotted them all. Maybe the Member for Anson may have spotted some which I have not. I hope tile rest will bring up these things before the House. But as I see the Government's motion, there are three aspects to the motion. The first aspect is the White Paper. The second aspect is the loan agreement. The third aspect is the common market. And there is a fourth aspect to it, which is neither here nor there, and the Government had hoped that we would not see it. We have seen some of it - some of us who have spent sleepless nights, and I am quite groggy on my feet. But we have seen some of it. But whether we are sufficiently compos mentis to make our points as logically and as coherently as we might otherwise have done is a matter for history to say. On the White Paper, as I have indicated, the Government has a complete mandate from the Legislative Assembly. I congratulate the Government on carrying it through very efficiently. On the loan agreement, there was no mandate. On the common market there was no mandate. But I will not pretend that I was not unaware of what Government was doing. I will not pretend. I approve of some of the things which they said and did. I think some of the things which they finally did are wrong. But it may be purely a matter of personal opinion. They may be right, but my personal opinion is that the loan agreement was wrong. That is my personal opinion. The Prime Minister said that the ten years that are to come from today are the vital years for Singapore. He is right. If we survive the next five to ten years, we will have turned the corner into an era of stability. But the first ten years is an unstable period, and the boat is likely to rock any minute. Somebody could rock it. And, therefore, the State must be in a position to maintain the boat on an even keel. My own personal view is, give an outright grant of $25 million maybe, but do not permit $150 million of the taxpayers' money to go out in loans. We are committing the money over a period of 10 years to 15 years. I am not grudging the loan, because I know that any money lent to Borneo, any benefit which they get, Singapore must inevitably benefit. I surely appreciate that. But while benefiting others, I think we should benefit ourselves first. I really believe that if the $100 million or the $125 million of that money which is being loaned to the Federation for Borneo had been kept with us, it could have been utilised for social services. It could have been utilised for a number of good things which the people in Singapore should have. And the more they have, the less liable they are to be agitated by the friends of the Prime Minister whom he calls the manipulators of the Barisan Sosialis. That is the only point, Mr Speaker. I do not grudge Borneo the money. Good luck to them. Their prosperity must inevitably be ours. The Federation's prosperity must inevitably be ours, and we would like to be in between two areas of prosperity. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not competent to speak on the common market. The Prime Minister has said that his able Finance Minister will explain the whole position to the House. He has not yet done so. No doubt when he does so, there will be other Members on my side of the House who will deal with the matter. I want to deal particularly with the constitutional aspect of the merger agreement and the documents that have now been put before us. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that there was a fourth aspect to these documents. There were deletions here and there, amendments here and there; and everything was crowded on to us within 24 hours, perhaps in the hope and expectation that we might not notice material changes. But I propose to bring up some of the matters I have noticed. The first point I wish to deal with is Article 69. If I may refer to Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963, Article 69, page 47. This is a matter which deals with a Bill intituled "An Act for Malaysia", and this will be passed by the Federal Parliament. Article 69 of that Bill affects Singapore. With your permission, Mr Speaker, might I read it - at least the relevant portions of it? Article 69: `(1) No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Governor [the Goveror here is 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 -' Now, constitutionally, in my mind, it means this: No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Government of Singapore if the amendment is such as to affect the operation of the Constitution in relation to Singapore as regards any of the following matters:- `(a) citizenship of Singapore... (b) the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Court in Singapore and the appointment, removal and suspension of judges of that court; (c) the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State may make laws, the executive authority of the State in those matters, the borrowing powers of the State and the financial arrangements between the Federation and the State; (d) the discharge of functions of the Public Services Commission or of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission by a branch established for the State, and the constitution of any such branch; (e) religion in the State [which the Prime Minister touched on yesterday], the use in the State or in Parliament of any language and the special position of the Malays in Singapore; (f) the allocation to the State, in any Parliament summoned to meet before the end of August, 1970, of a quota of members of the House of Representatives not less, in proportion to the total allocated to the other States which are members of the Federation on Malaysia Day, than the quota allocated to the State on that day.'. In juxtaposition to that Article, Sir, may I refer you to page 161 of the same Command Paper - Article 90 of our Constitution, because they both tie up. Article 69 is the Federal angle; let us now get the Singapore angle. Article 90 reads: `(1) Subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution and to the following provisions of this Article, the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature. (2) A Bill for making an amendment to this Constitution (other than an amendment excepted from the provisions of this clause) shall not be passed by the Legislative Assembly unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members thereof. (3) The following amendments are excepted from the provisions of clause (2) of this Article, that is to say -

No.

I may be wrong, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I would be happier if Article 69 (1) read, "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of two-thirds of the votes of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore.". I would then be a much happier man, and I would sleep much better.

That is what it is.

Well, let us have it in black and white! Let us not quibble about it in the Courts. Let us have it in a language that we all can understand. You talk about the Governor. If you were to read it again, you might think one single man could do it. Then in order to find out who the "Governor" is, you have to go to some interpreting section. And then we find that the "Governor" means the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. And then you get to know from the Constitutional experts that the "Yang di-Pertuan Negara" in the Constitution means the Cabinet. Now I am told by the Front Benchers that the Cabinet means the Legislative Assembly. I am puzzled; quite frankly I am, when the Cabinet can mean the Legislative Assembly. That really beats me. Let the Government prove that the Cabinet equates to two-thirds of the Legislative Assembly, and I am happy. But until they can show it to me and to the Assembly that the Cabinet does not equate to two-thirds of the Assembly - not a majority vote; we do not want a majority vote. We might have a 26/25 Assembly here and the Government could put it through a 26-vote; no, we do not want that. We want a two-thirds majority of the Legislative Assembly. The Prime Minister has quite rightly fought for certain things to be put into the Constitution. He has said, "I want the Common Market terms embodied in the Constitution." I agree with him completely and utterly. I am behind him because that is our only protection. Once we have it in the Constitution, the Federal Parliament Cabinet cannot alter it. We must have protection, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is no protection to us. We will end up with the Federal Cabinet taking away all our constitutional safeguards and well be left naked, high and dry. That is the first point. The second point is Article 30 (2) (b) of Paper Cmd. 22, at page 144 - Tenure of office of Members. If I may read it, Mr Speaker, Sir: `(1) Every Member of the Legislative Assembly shall cease to be a Member at the next dissolution of the Legislative Assembly after he has been elected, or previously thereto if his seat becomes vacant, under the provisions of this Constitution. (2) The seat of a Member of the Legislative Assembly shall become vacant -

Point of clarification, Sir. Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

I am much obliged. It might assist the Member for Farrer Park. In truth and in fact, that provision is not in the constitutional instruments, and Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963 is a false document.

Yes, I am much obliged. I was coming to that. That is what I call a back-hand method. Or is it a back-door method - I do not know which is the more correct expression. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know of no constitutional document which gives a constitutional position to a political Party. If there is, I am willing to be enlightened. But as far as I know and as far as those whom I have been able to consult know, no. Can they advise me? We are not aware of any such thing. Perhaps before I begin to comment on it, we should put this in its proper perspective by referring to Paper Cmd. 2094, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which I believe deals with the same topic as we but in certain vital issues we seem to differ.

An earlier edition?

Whichever edition it is, it is the edition in my hands and I am going to quote from it. If the Minister for Finance has a later edition of this Command Paper issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, he is welcome to quote it. On page 146, Sir, of the document quoted, Article 30 reads: `Every Member of the Legislative Assembly shall cease to be a Member at the next dissolution of the Legislative Assembly after he has been elected or previously thereto if his seat becomes vacant under the provisions of this Constitution. The seat of a Member of the Legislative Assembly shall become vacant -

Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Farrer Park will be lucky during the tea-break. I suspend this sitting and shall take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we took the adjournment I was on page 144 of Cmd. 22 of 1963 dealing with Article 30 (2) (b). I referred in my speech to the fact that this particular sub-clause (2) does not appear in the Annexure to the Act passed by the British Parliament, and I was on the verge of raising the constitutional and legal issues relating to these differences in the documents presented to us and the document which has been passed in the House of Commons and afterwards in the House of Lords. Whether it has received Her Majesty the Queen's Assent, I am not in a position to say, but I would think that once it receives Her Majesty the Queen's Assent, then the Annexure and the Bill itself become a statute and no provisions of the statute nor any part or portion of the Annexure could be altered without the consent of Parliament. Then the constitutional position would be that Her Majesty the Queen would formulate an Order in Council which would then become, [take it, our Constitution. Now the Government has presented us with Cmd. 22 of 1963 which diverges certainly to this extent in clause 30 (2) (b) which is not in the English counterpart. I want a categorical reply from the Government on this, assuming they get a vote on this section, as to what is the constitutional and legal position. Would this supersede the Annexure to the British Act which would become the Order in Council, or would Parliament have to reconvene and pass the Bill all over again with a different Annexure, or is the Queen competent constitutionally of her own accord and volition to alter the Annexure to suit the private wish of our Prime Minister and his party colleagues, because he is afraid that one or two of his Back benchers might cross over. I am not looking in any particular direction, Mr Speaker, Sir,I just happened to look that way. [Laughter] Is the Prime Minister afraid that one or two might cross over and he might lose his majority? It could well be that it is not so, but it does look like it, because he is in fact with this problem very much on his lap; does he think that this is the way out for him? I respectfully suggest to him that it should not be embodied in the Constitution. Perhaps it might be embodied in a local Act. That will be just between them and us for the moment. But to embody it in the Constitution of Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to embody it for the present and the future. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may read that paragraph (b) again: `If he ceases to be a member of or is expelled or resigns from the political party for which he stood in the election;'. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you will forgive me for referring to myself. I am possibly the only Member in this Assembly whom this section will not catch. It will not catch me at all, because I contested the elections as an Independent and if I subsequently join a Party as in fact I have and resign from it, this section does not affect me. So you will forgive me for suggesting to you that my speech on this can be completely objective - no personal motives, no personal interests; I think I should be given the weight that should be given to an objective point of view, and in this particular matter I am the only person in this august Assembly who could express that objective view, because there is no other Member in this House who was returned as an Independent. Now, Mr Speaker, could I refer you to page 165 of the same Command Paper? Section 96 - PART VIII TEMPORARY AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS - marginal note, "Legislative Assembly.". A very interesting provision, Mr Speaker, Sir. Some of us - not me - are going to be very worried indeed after I finish reading it. I have no personal interests, as I have said. I will read it very slowly, Mr Speaker, Sir, so that it will sink in. `The Legislative Assembly established by the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, (that is, our Constitution we arc now working on, Mr Speaker] shall remain in being and shall be deemed to be the Legislative Assembly established by this Constitution, and accordingly -

Order. I think the Member for Farrer Park rather frightened the Speaker when he suggested that the Speaker has to make constitutional decisions. Does not section 32 of the proposed Constitution at page 145 take the matter out of the hands of the Speaker? `Any question whether - any Member of the Legislative Assembly has vacated his seat therein;

shall be determined by the Legislative Assembly whose decision shall be final:'.

That takes you out of your difficulties! The section you read just now - Article 30, sub-article (3) : `Any person whose seat in the Legislative Assembly has become vacant may, if qualified, again be elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly...' I am not suggesting that the Member for - An hon. Member: Section 32.

I beg your pardon - section 32. I see, Sir: `shall be determined by the Legislative Assembly whose decision shall be final.'. Yes, Sir, I appreciate your difficulties, but the point is that before the Legislative Assembly can sit as a Legislative Assembly, they will have to take an oath. And the only person who can administer the oath is you. You see the predicament you have been placed in. Oh, a terrible situation. Sir, I am informed by the Front-benches that the Speaker knows his duty and he will do it fearlessly and without prejudice. But the net result will be; if I may deal with the left first, the Member for Jon Chiat. Unfortunately, he is absent from the House at the moment. He contested the seat, unfortunately for him as a Member of the Singapore People's Alliance, and subsequently for reasons best known to himself he has resigned from the Party and is now an Independent. He is in the tentacles of these clauses. Fourteen members in the Barisan Sosialis will also have to take counsel's opinion on this matter. The Member for Anson - the Workers' Party - he has resigned. He is also caught. He too will have to take counsel's opinion. My good friend from Hong Lim [Interruption] Oh, that is right, he and I are the only safe ones in this matter. [Interruption] We are on common safe ground. No Assembly, no Speaker, no Prime Minister can push us from pillar to post. We are quite safe until May, is it? Mr Speaker, Sir, until May 1964 we are quite safe.

Order. Would the Member for Farrer Park like to expound the position of the Member for Aljunied?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember the Member for Aljunied. I discussed the matter with my Leader. And I said, "What do you think I should say of the Member for Aljunied?". Maybe he has a point in his favour. He is now in the P.A.P. I make a point - this operation of law, once it starts to operate, you have had it. So I suggested that having left the P.A.P., having come to this side and then gone back, it will not help him at all. That is my view. But I, in deference to my leader, thought I might not raise it. The Member for Aljunied also is in a perilous position. Some hon. Members: No, no.

Constitutionally I mean. Constitutionally he is in a parlous position. Mr Speaker. Sir, if he does not take counsel's opinion - I am afraid you might have to take counsel's opinion [Interruption]. Of course, the decent way out of the situation would be to dissolve the Assembly straightaway, then these constitutional problems would not be posed. Perhaps you might eventually be reduced to that. You see, Mr Speaker, Sir, how these things work. You tamper with one section, not knowing what are the full implications. May I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, how this has occurred? The English Order.

The English Order?

You know. Mr Speaker, Sir, you were once practising at the Bar, and all of us who practise at the Bar know this. The draftsmen in the State Advocate-General's Chambers take as a model the English Act. And into the English Act they introduce one or two amendments - as has been done to this Order in Council - not knowing sometimes that these amendments will cause dislocation and disruption to the whole - without having considered the whole system worked out in the original English Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, I had sleepless nights looking at this thing. I do not see why I should not give the sleepless nights to Members on the Front bench now. On page 167 of Cmd. 2094, which I have just quoted. Article 96 is exactly identical with our Article 96. There the operative words are: "...or their seats as Members in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution; ...". There, of course, it is completely logical and it makes sense, because the whole of Article 30, reading it with this Article, does not create any disturbance or violation as our amended Article 30. When the State Advocate-General's Chambers start to tinker with the Order in Council which has been formulated by some of the most expert legal draftsmen in the world, and if they think they are competent to tinker with it, at least they should take precautions by consulting the London draftsmen by asking, "I say, if we did this, do you think there would be any ramifications?" I think the State Advocate-General - I do not want to detract from the praise the Prime Minister has showered on him. He has done a good job. But even Homer nods. Well, there it is. If I may now refer to page 145. Mr Speaker, Sir, i might make the other point, that there is nothing in the Federal Constitution similar to our Constitution - Article 30 (2) (b). An hon. Member: Oh, they are going to change it.

I do not know whether they are going to. At the moment the Federal Constitution in that respect is utterly and entirely different from ours. I think that is the point I must make to the House. If I may read Article 33 in page 145: `Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in the State.' Now, I understand that the counterpart in the Federation is on pages 13 and 14 of this Cmd. Paper. Is it page 13? I understand in the Federation it is six weeks from the date of vacancy.

Sixty days.

Sixty days. I beg your pardon. Page 14 - `(which requires a casual vacancy to be filled within sixty days from the date on which it occurs)'. Are you there, Mr Speaker?

Yes, I am.

Thank you. When I said, "Are you there?", I mean on this section. You know, Mr Speaker, we have a Jot of trouble in Singapore over the Sembawang by-election. An hon. Member: One year.

What I feel is this. That we should have these things written down in such a way that we do not give people sleepless nights thinking over what they should do and should not do. In other words, discretion. Too much discretion should not be given to the Government. You see how much time they waste thinking over whether they should have a by-election in Sembawang, whether it should be five days from today, or whether it should be six days from tomorrow. You see how much time and trouble we will save the Government if we put in an amendment to Article 33 - `That the casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days of such occurrence.' The law then would take its course. And the Government would not have to make these very, very difficult decisions. I do accept it. If I were in the Government's position, I might be doing the same thing. But there is no reason why when I am in the Opposition I should not see that the right thing is done. An hon. Member: When you are on the Government side!

We will one day, one day. Sir, that is the position. The other point which I think I should raise for the record, which I should raise on the second point I raised, that is on Article 30 (2) (b). I apologise for not having -

Order. The hon. Member has also referred to Section 33 of Cmd. 2094. Is that the section being referred to?

Page 145, Sir.

Page 147?

I beg your pardon. Sir. In the English Order, it is page 147. In our Command Paper, it is 145.

No, page 147 -33.

Page 147 -33, Sir, is the blue book, if I may use it, Sir.

33, yes.

33 - oh yes, Mr Speaker, I am much obliged to you. Quite correct. Well, our article reads - `Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in the State.' The corresponding section in the English Order in Council which appears in the English Act is 33, which I will read very, very slowly in order that the Government Benches might understand it. Except for the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, they might not have read it. `Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall within three months from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy, be filled by election, in the manner provided by, or under any law for the time being in force in the State.' An hon. Member: We got caught again.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is jiggery-pokery of the Government. These are all substantial amendments to the constitution which affect the vital interests of the State. Yet when the Prime Minister made his speech, I think, in fairness to the Opposition - now I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, why I have not been given these differences. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have told you that I had requested the S.A.G. to give me these differences. I can now understand why I had not been given them. If the list had come to me this would have been pinpointed. In the British Parliament, the Agreement between our Government, the Federation Government and the British Government was clause 33 - `Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall within three months from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy, be filled ...'. What do we have in our Constitution? The present position as existing? Mr Speaker, Sir, you know what happened to Mr Profumo. I am not thinking of his private life. I am thinking of his constitutional conduct - lying to Parliament. He went out. One can tell a lie positively. One can tell a lie negatively. If this is not positive, then it is the other thing. So, you see, Mr Speaker, what a difficult position we are faced with. We support Malaysia. We believe in Malaysia. We fought for it with the Government side by side; if the Prime Minister does not object to the continuation of the simile, shoulder to shoulder. And we, who have been fighting with him on this matter on a national basis, have been unwittingly led along. I suppose the suggestion is, "Because it is Malaysia, the Alliance will not dare to vote against the motion. Therefore, let us put in all the amendments which are going to suit the P.A.P." We cannot do it on the Alliance side. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Alliance side we cannot accept it. We regret it very much but we cannot accept it. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. I wish to propose an amendment, and if I might read the amendment to you, and then hand out copies of it so that you might give me guidance as to how I might proceed in this matter. Envelope handed in to Mr Rajah. May I open a document, Mr Speaker, which has just reached me? It is On Government Service, addressed to me.

Yes. Envelope opened by Mr Rajah. The document in question [indicating] is a document from the State Advocate-General which he promised me. But I am on the verge of finishing my speech. I think I have made enough points to satisfy even the most unwilling Front Bench. Some jiggery-pokery is, in fact, going on. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your guidance, and if I might hand over the amendment. Amendment handed in.

The amendment reads: At the end, to add - "save and except the following Articles therein:-

The position is that the debate will continue on the main motion as well as the amendment which has been proposed by the Member for Queenstown. As the Member for Farrer Park has indicated that he, at the appropriate moment, will wish to move a further amendment, therefore, this debate could range over this further amendment which he says he will propose at the appropriate moment. He cannot do so now because there is already one amendment before the House. So that at the end of the debate, what I shall do, firstly, is to put the Question on the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, and thereafter, assuming that it might not receive the agreement of this House, if it is defeated, then we go back to the main motion of the Prime Minister, and then I shall ask the Member for Farrer Park to move simpliciter the amendment which he proposes to move. He must now say what he wishes to say on that amendment. Copies can be distributed. Copies of Mr Rajah's proposed amendment distributed to Members.

Mr Speaker, I am obliged to you for your guidance in this matter. I will not be very long, but I wish to make the position of the Alliance very clear. Sir, there is no question, so far as the Alliance is concerned of the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. The Government are trying to divide us. They keep on attacking the S.P.A., leaving the U.M.N.O. out. For their edification, I might say that the Member for Cairnhill, who is an Alliance member, is the leader of the Alliance, and the Member for the Southern Islands, who is an U.M.N.O. Member, is the Whip of the Party. And any action taken by the Alliance is after joint consultation. We are in this together. There is no divergence of views. So let not the Government try and split us. It is quite unworthy of them. It will not get them anywhere. Sir, all I wish to say is this. We are for Malaysia. I ask the Government not to make it difficult for us to vote with them on this motion. While we are for Malaysia, we are even more so for Singapore. It is because we love Singapore so much that we go into Malaysia. Now, if in going into Malaysia, some jiggery-pokery is going to be perpetrated against Singapore, to preserve some party interests, we are not going to be a party to that. We cannot and we must not. The Alliance makes this offer that if they support this amendment we will whole-heartedly and with great pleasure vote with them on the motion, but if they deny us this and defeat us on this amendment, it is with the utmost regret that we will have to refrain from voting on a matter on which we are so vitally concerned and connected. I hope the Government will not force us into that position.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Malaysia Agreement is a sell-out by the P.A.P. minority Government. There is not much difference between the Malaysia Agreement signed by two Ministers who have lost their mandate in the country and the same situation when the military warlord, Wang Tze Kai signed away China with 21 conditions to Japan. Both sell-outs happened more or less in the same circumstances, and in the same predicament. We support the principle of Malaysia, which is a merger of the five territories of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei - a genuine merger of these territories on fair and equal terms.

That is bad luck.

But the Malaysia Agreement signed by the P.A.P. minority Government in the United Kingdom with the British and the Federation Governments is not in concord with the concept of Malaysia. Singapore is relegated to a vassal State with many obligations and liabilities and with little rights. Singapore is a step-brother in this so-called family. Our rights have been sold by this P.A.P. minority Government down the gutter. Mr Speaker, Sir, on 24th January, 1962, I said in this Assembly that we support the concept of Malaysia which will provide a bigger single political and economic unit for the benefit of the ten million inhabitants of this country, giving us wider opportunities for both political and economic advancement. But, as I said in my speech on 24th January, 1962, the P.A.P. White Paper proposals could not provide us with the opportunities for both political and economic advancement for the people of Singapore. There will be two types of citizenship, one for the rest of Malaysia, and the other, an inferior status of Malaysian citizenship, for us, the people of Singapore. There will be restrictions of movement within the new Federation of Malaysia so that the people of Singapore cannot exercise their full rights as citizens of Malaysia. The people of Singapore are relegated to an inferior class of Malaysian citizenship anti their rights will be suppressed. This is not the Malaysia we want. The present scheme is to suppress the rights of the people of Singapore. Our stand on the Malaysian issue is most constant and has never wavered, not even once. Sir, the Malaysia Agreement, which is a direct departure from the Malaysia concept, and endorsed by the minority Government of the P.A.P., is an act of treachery perpetrated against the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. Government are so ashamed of this, and that is why Opposition Members are given all these voluminous constitutional documents only at the last minute. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Malaysia Agreement containing 232 pages was given to me on Sunday afternoon. This is the document which will decide the destiny of 1.8 million people of Singapore, and also our children to come. This document is the most vital document ever produced in the State to decide the fate and the destiny of 1 .8 million people of Singapore and their future generations. It dwarfs the importance of the Rendel Constitution and the 1958 Singapore Constitution, because in those Constitutions we were only provided with temporary Governments for fleeting phases in Singapore's history, at the most for four to five years, and despite that, with those two Constitutions, the Opposition and the people were afforded ample time and opportunities to put forward their views and discuss the merits or demerits of those Constitutions. But with the Malaysia Agreement and the new State Constitution of Singapore under this so-called Malaysia, documents which will decide our destiny for many hundreds of years to come, let me ask the Government, how many people in Singapore have read these vital documents? In my opinion, there are not more than 20 or 30 people in Singapore who have read these vital documents. The P.A.P. Government dare not even translate the Malaysia Agreement into the vernacular languages and publish it in the Press. Whereas in the case of the financial negotiations with the Federation Government, special long explanatory articles were written by the Government and even translations of certain documents on the financial agreements were made and published in the Press. Of course, the Government will give us the excuse that there is not enough time to translate the Malaysia Agreement into the various vernacular languages for the people. But, Sir, shall we just pass this document which dwarfs all the sell-out treaties signed by Chinese military war lords to imperialist powers when only at the most 20 or 30 people in Singapore have read them? Why is the Government so scared? Why has the Government given us so little time to study the documents, to debate them, giving us only three days to debate - documents which would decide our destinies for hundreds of years! Giving us only three days to debate and to inform the people. Sir, is this not a sell-out? Is this not a genuine sell-out? And that is why they are so scared. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must strongly protest against the manner in which the P.A.P. Government is treating the Opposition and the people. They are afraid that the people will know what goes on. The 234-page Malaysia Agreement, that is, the Blue Book, could be bought in the United Kingdom from the British Government Printing Office about two weeks ago for about $6 per copy, and some Members of the Opposition managed to obtain several copies. I believe the P.A.P. Government said that the Malaysia Agreement published by the United Kingdom Government, which is the Blue Book, is somewhat different from the Malaysia Agreement presented to the Singapore Legislative Assembly, which is the White Book. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the Federation Government is going to present to the Federation Parliament next month when they are going to debate also the Malaysia Agreement. I believe they use the Brown Book. Now the British passed the Blue Book, which is different from the White Book passed by the Singapore Assembly, which might be different from the Brown Book passed by the Federation Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, how are we going to run this country? Which book is the right interpretation of what has been sold out? Would the P.A.P. tell us the whole truth? What have they sold out? How much have they sold us out? Why should we have so many versions of what they have signed in England? I wish to seek clarification from the Government on which is the genuine Malaysia Agreement. Why do they not produce to us photostat copies of the genuine Malaysia Agreement to which this minority P.A.P. Government have attested their signatures? Sir, I remember after the P.A.P. special conference of 19th June, 1960, when I was expelled, though there was not such an item to expel me on the agenda, the P.A.P. leadership produced different versions of the minutes of party proceedings, one version for the English press and another version for the Chinese press. Different versions of proceedings of one meeting. Now we have the same situation - different versions of what was sold out in the United Kingdom. I must admit, Sir, it is very difficult for us to trust the P.A.P. leadership. We never know for sure to what extent this minority P.A.P. Government has sold out Singapore. I wish to ask the Government this question. Has the Government given to the Opposition all available documents concerning Singapore's constitutional future, or are these only part of the documents? Are there any more documents relevant to the constitutional future of Singapore which the P.A.P. Government has sought to hide from us? Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Government will clarify the matter later. The minority P.A.P. Government must make available to the Opposition Members all the minutes and all the documents of their negotiations from 1961 onwards; then we will know exactly the extent of P.A.P. treachery. For instance, the papers on the financial negotiations as contained in Misc. 4 of 1963 contain only 77 pages. I am sure there must be thousands of pages of documents concerning just the financial talks alone. Why not give us the documents and all the facts so that we can gauge the extent of the P.A.P. sell-out? Mr Speaker, I have a feeling there are many things the P.A.P. Government is trying to hide from us and from the people. In order to conceal all its sins of betrayal and treachery, this minority P.A.P. Government produces photostat copies on scraps of paper, things written on the back of used envelopes, and telling us they are vital constitutional documents. Mr Speaker, Sir, how can a constitutional document be written and endorsed at the back - with scribbled notes - of a used envelope, and produced as a part of the White Paper for debate in this Assembly? Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the notes scribbled by the Federation Prime Minister at the Ritz Hotel on 8th July, 1963. I am not sure whether it is the 8th July, 1963, or the 7th July, 1963. There were two dates there. It could be either 12 midnight of 7th July or 12.01 on 8th July. Sir, I believe they were only points of discussion which the Federation Prime Minister scribbled on the back of a used envelope which he happened to pick up at his desk. Is that proof that the Federation Government had agreed to all the five points of discussion scribbled on the back of a used envelope? The words scribbled on the used envelope are: (1) "Loans, labourers - not outside Malaysia - 50 per cent Singapore." Mr Speaker, Sir, what does that mean to us? "Labourers - not outside Malaysia - 50 per cent Singapore." (2) "Singapore L. Assemblymen - resignation or expulsion - vacate seat - so long as does not conflict parliamentary practice." Mr Speaker, Sir, that is more understandable although it is like a Morse Code to us. (3) "Singapore Immigration and restriction order movement. Reciprocal." Reciprocal might have many meanings. (4) "Singapore gangster." I could not read the words. It looks like O.S.K., a Japanese shipping line. "Singapore gangster 0.5K. Detention delegate to us in Singapore." Now, Mr Speaker, this is the best joke of this "vital constitutional document." "Detention delegate to us in Singapore." This is signed by the Federation Prime Minister. In other words, the Federation Prime Minister delegates the power of detention to the Federation Prime Minister in Singapore. "To us in Singapore" - that is what he has said. It does not say that detention delegate to the P.A.P. Government in Singapore - to the Singapore Government. And the last point, Sir, is: "Singapore last part out - inter-government committee." This makes no sense to me at all. Sir, to mock all this P.A.P. propaganda, we have in today's papers, that is, 31st July, the Federation Government's straight denial that they have agreed to these five points. Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to refer to page 9 of one of the Chinese newspapers, the Nanyang Siang Pau. The Federation Government have come out with a denial that they have agreed to any of these points. Mr Speaker, I think having sold away Singapore in London the Singapore Prime Minister became panicky. He must have a guilty conscience. Before he departed for London, he talked big. He tried to play up the $50 million grant issue - to cover up the purpose of the trip which was to sign away Singapore. That was the genuine and the only purpose of the trip. So in order to cover it up be used all the weapons of propaganda at his disposal and told us. "Fellow countrymen. I am not the Sultan of Singapore; I am not going to give away $50 million." But he was going there quietly to sign away Singapore lock, stock and barrel. Sir, he gave away $50 million in another form - in the form of interest-free loans for 10 years - five years in the first instance. When he returned to Singapore he knew the big guns of the Opposition would be waiting for him. Being a very shrewd politician, he tried to catch the bull by the horns. He organised a so-called victory celebration to cover up his sell-out and his defeat in London. The crowd in the City Hall steps and in Hong Lim Park attracted by the concerts turned away when the Prime Minister began to speak. On the first night the T.V. cameraman must have got a scolding for turning his T.V. lenses on the dispersing crowd as the returned hero spoke. On the second night in Hong Lim Park the T.V. cameraman must have learnt his lesson. The Work Brigade boys in front were so embarrassed as the T.V. lenses had only their faces to focus. Sir, the Prime Minister and the P.A.P. leadership saw it. The ground was cold. Nobody echoed to the shouts of Merdeka despite the fact that the Prime Minister tried to explain. The P.A.P. leaders knew they were finished. They pinned their last hope on the undemocratic Federal Elections Bill through which they hoped they could rig the elections. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leadership had a feeling in London that things were not going too well. They have deceived the Chinese-speaking people in Singapore into believing that Singapore is going to have financial autonomy. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, the Prime Minister has never mentioned the words "financial autonomy" when he made his speeches in English, but when he made his speeches in Mandarin or in Hokkien, he used the words "financial autonomy" for Singapore. But I feel, Sir, that they made a grave tactical mistake in playing up the financial talks. They thought it was good propaganda, hoping to deceive the people that although they had endorsed the White Paper they still had the interests of the people of Singapore at heart - always defending their rights against the encroachment of the Federation Government. They forgot the old saying, "Who brought the wolf into the house?" They cannot deliver the goods on the financial talks which they played up. They were back to the same original position before they played up the financial talks. The whole propaganda strategy boomeranged against the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, they gave away $50 million in another form, in the form of an interest-free loan. The P.A.P. leadership knew they were finished. Sir, I say that they will not get more than five seats in the 51-seat contest if it is held in September, that is, two months from now, or only a few weeks from now, and their five seats will diminish in number as time passes by as the people of Singapore see the Malaysia Agreement and the new Constitution of Singapore work out in practice to the detriment of the people. Therefore, the P.A.P. must do something in their power to save themselves after signing the fatal Malaysia Agreement. Any straw is good for them; any straw is good for sinking people. It must have been somewhere near midnight when the Singapore Prime Minister -or was it about 9.30 - went from his Park Lane Hotel - I believe, Sir, it costs �30 a night - to see the Federation Prime Minister at the Ritz Hotel. The Singapore Prime Minister must have put forward five items of discussion and begged the Federation Prime Minister to agree. The first point on labour arising from Singapore's $150 million loan to the Borneo State is to explain why Singapore gave away $50 million worth of interest. We have to pay $50 million worth of interest to get this loan and in turn lend it to the Borneo State. The other three points are to save the collapse of the P.A.P., particularly asking for the rights to detain people under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. The main purpose of this request is that the P.A.P. Government will have the power to deal with political opponents since the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance has been given away to the Federation Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can imagine that the Federation Prime Minister was tired between the nocturnal hours of 7th and 8th July. The Singapore Prime Minister can be a very persistent man. He has the capacity to drum his views into a person for hours and hours. The Federation Prime Minister requiring sleep must have listened impatiently, and being a good-natured man and requiring more sleep because he is an older man, could have nodded his head and said, "Yah, yah, yah," which means nothing at all. [Laughter] Mr Speaker, Sir, it is like the Singapore Minister for Finance. When he listens to a request for funds, he nods his head, and all the time he says, "Yes, yes, yes." But he does not mean that he agrees to the request for funds. The Singapore Prime Minister could have then taken away the used envelope on which the Federation Prime Minister had scribbled some notes on points raised by the Singapore Prime Minister. He therefore waited until the Malaysia Agreement was signed on the 9th of July, and on the 10th of July, he shot a memorandum to the Federation Prime Minister hoping by this memorandum to get the Federation Prime Minister committed. The Federation Prime Minister, being an equally astute politician, did not reply and confirm the memorandum. That is why in this exchange of letters as contained in the White Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, in this bundle of Documents, we did not see any reply, any memorandum, from the Federation Prime Minister confirming this so-called agreement on the 5 points. Mr Speaker, is this not unusual? The P.A.P. Government has a lot to explain to the people. Today the Federation Government have not only issued a denial that they have agreed to the five points, but they have produced a photostat copy which is slightly different from the photostat copy published by the Singapore Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have two photostat copies. I do not know which one is correct. We have in the Nan yang Siang Pau a photostat copy which is more or less the same as the photostat copy produced in the White Paper Misc. 5 of 1963, but it seems to me that there are many words here with crosses and marks not contained in the Singapore photostat copy. Sir, I must admit that I am getting more and more confused. There are two versions of the Malaysia Agreement; there might even be three versions. There are two versions of what happened in a bedroom at the Ritz Hotel on the night of either the 7th or the 8th of July. Sir, these are vital constitutional matters and issues affecting the fate and the lives of 1.8 million people and our future. These are not four-digit lottery numbers written on scraps of paper. Mr Speaker, these constitutional documents are irrevocable. They will forever in perpetuity seal the fate of the people of Singapore. They are hundreds of times more important than the 1958 Singapore Constitution which is only for a period of a few years. Mr Speaker, Sir, yet when the 1958 Singapore Constitution was signed in the United Kingdom, it was signed by an All-Party Delegation and it had the backing of all the Parties and the people in Singapore. The broad principles of constitutional advancement were at first discussed at an All-Party Conference and debated in the Assembly and all Party delegations took part in the detailed negotiations on the 1958 Singapore Constitution in the United Kingdom. Draft copies of the 1958 Constitution were circulated to Opposition Assemblymen giving them ample time to study the detailed provisions so that they could fully take part in the debate. But, Sir, here we have a minority P.A.P. Government which, if it has any sense of decency left, should have resigned last Thursday on the undemocratic Federal Elections Bill after having promised to do so. Here, we have a Government which has no majority, a Government which has lost two key by-elections, signing away the rights of the people of Singapore. How can this minority P.A.P. Government sign on behalf of Singapore? They have lost their mandate to govern long ago. Even in this Assembly which was elected more than four years ago and where the power position has shifted considerably since 1959, the P.A.P. Government has suffered an ignominous defeat on the vital Bill, and they should have resigned there and then on their solemn undertaking Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand why this Government want to linger on from clay to day in office like the Lim Yew Hock Government did before the 1959 general elections. Why do the P.A.P. Government want to commit the rights of the people of Singapore deeper and deeper down the drain? Mr Speaker, the documents in the Malaysia Agreement must be looked at from two aspects. The first aspect is that it is primarily a sell-out treaty signed by two persons representing a minority Government of Singapore. The second aspect is that in consideration of hawking away the rights of the people the P.A.P. Government managed to get a few concessions here and there for their own selfish interest which they hope would resuscitate the P.A.P., and if the Federation Government is prepared to be the scapegoat for destroying P.A.P. opponents, then the way is open for a higher ambition - the road to Prime Ministership of Malaysia. Of course, we know that that is an idle, vain dream. At this moment, if the P.A.P. were to hold a clean honest election, they would not get even one of the 15 seats to the Federal Parliament. Sir, let us examine the sell-out aspect of the Malaysia Agreement. First of all, there is the sell-out on citizenship rights. I have often said that there will be two classes of Malaysian citizenship: one class meant for citizens of the 11 Malayan States and the two Borneo States of Sarawak and Sabah, and the other class is an inferior class of Malaysian citizenship (Singapore) meant for the 624,000 citizens of Singapore. The two classes of Malaysian citizenship are not interchangeable by moving residence and this distinction will remain for ever, for many, many centuries to come. It does not only affect the present generation of 1.8 million people of Singapore but also their future generations. There is no provision in the Malaysia Agreement to provide for a review of the Constitution at some future date, so that the two classes of Malaysian citizenship can be abolished, so that one class of Malaysian citizenship will remain. Sir, in other words, there will be two separate compartments in Malaysia - entirely different compartments - one compartment comprises the 11 Malayan States and the two Borneo States and the other compartment is Singapore. The Singapore compartment is doomed for ever. Under the provisions of the Malaysia Agreement, even if Singapore citizens increased greatly in number in excess of its present 624,000 citizens to even, say, one million, and let us assume the other compartment, namely, the Federation and the Borneo States have not increased at all, yet Singapore's representation in the Central Parliament would always remain at 15 seats. There is no provision for review and under the Malaysia Agreement Article 31, sub-clause (1), a Singapore citizen can only be elected as a Member of Parliament. He cannot go elsewhere and vote or stand for election, but in the case of the first-class Malaysian citizenship, he can go anywhere, stand, vote and be elected.

Not in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I heard an interesting joke, that the Minister for Home Affairs did not even read the Constitution on the citizenship issue. There is no provision. Mr Speaker Sir,In that case, since the increase in the number of Singapore citizens does not affect Singapore's representation of M.P.s in the Central Government, then it should only be fair that the right to confer and deprive Singapore citizenship should rest solely on the Singapore Legislature and on the Singapore Government. But this is not what we expect in the Malaysia Agreement. The Federal Government will take away the basic rights of conferring Singapore citizenship and depriving Singapore citizenship. The right to confer Singapore citizenship by naturalisation goes to the Federation Government under Article 27 (1) (a) (ii). Of course, it is provided that the Singapore Government must concur. The Singapore Government has no right to deprive the citizenship of a person naturalised as a Singapore citizen by the Federation Government. The Singapore Government has no right to deprive the citizenship of a person naturalised as a Singapore citizen by the Federation Government. They confer on somebody whom we do not like, Singapore citizenship status, and we cannot revoke it. The Singapore Government has the right to approve Singapore citizenship by registration -only by registration. But such approval requires the concurrence of the Federation Government. That is contained in Article 57 (1) of the Singapore Constitution. The Federation Government can deprive any Singapore citizen of his Singapore citizenship by depriving the latter of his second-class Malaysia citizenship under Article 23 (3) of the Malaysia Act. Mr Speaker. Sir, what will happen is this. We will be Singapore citizens as well as second-class Malaysia citizens. The Federation Government, by depriving us of our second-class Malaysia citizenship, will automatically deprive us of our Singapore citizenship. Is this not a sell-out? I must refer you to clause 64 of the Singapore Constitution which reads as follows: '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 citizen of Singapore.'. Is this clause not unfair to the people of Singapore? Why should the minority P.A.P. Government commit the destiny of 624,000 Singapore citizens? The Singapore Assembly and the Singapore Government should be given full autonomy on questions of Singapore citizenship because Singapore is not being accepted in a genuine merger. Second-class Malaysia citizenship (Singapore) is entirely a class and status all on its own. Why should the Federation Government be allowed to interfere in the granting and depriving of Singapore citizenship when the fact is that whether we have more or less Singapore citizens makes no difference to the number of seats in the Central Parliament? Sir, we should have complete autonomy on the question, of Singapore citizenship, that is, the question of even controlling an inferior class of Malaysia citizenship (Singapore) and that right is now denied us. There is no autonomy given to Singapore on Singapore citizenship. This should have been the case since Singapore is to be considered a separate unit under the control of the Federation Government and not fully integrated with the Federation of Malaya. Now, under the Malaysia Agreement the granting of citizenship by registration requires the sanction of both the Singapore Government and the Federation Government. This is under clause 57 (1) of the Singapore Constitution. Therefore, Sir, when applying for Singapore citizenship, instead of having one hurdle to cross as at present, there will be two hurdles to cross in the future. In other words, we must please both the Singapore Government and the Federation Government in order to acquire Singapore citizenship, which automatically makes us a second-class Malaysia citizenship (Singapore). Similarly, both the Federation Government and the Singapore Government have powers to deprive Singapore citizens of their citizenship. In other words, Sir, one has to be nice not only to the Singapore Government but also to the Federation Government. I refer you to section 61 and section 64 of the proposed Singapore Constitution. The Federation Government can, on its own, without our consent, grant to Singapore citizens, as I have said just now, the status of Singapore citizenship through the process of naturalisation. This is so even though the Singapore Government might consider such a person undesirable. To add insult to injury, the Singapore Government has no right to cancel the Singapore citizenship of such a person who is granted citizenship by naturalisation by the Federation Government. May I refer you to section 61(5) of the Singapore Constitution? It is a pity, Sir, that this P.A.P. minority government give us so little time to study the constitutional documents more carefully and in greater detail. Sir, may I ask the P.A.P. Government what is going to happen to the tens of thousands of applicants for Singapore citizenship which are still pending? I am sure if more time is given to the Opposition and if these vital constitutional documents were translated into all the vernacular languages and published in the Press, the Government would know the temper of the country, the temper of the Opposition to these sell-out documents. What type of merger is this? What type of country are we heading for? Is there any similar Federation elsewhere in the world? Article 60 (3) of the Malaysia Act gives the Federation Government the right to restrict second-class Malaysia citizenship of Singapore travelling to or residing in any part of Malaysia, including the Borneo territories. Sir, this is a shame. Why do the minority P.A.P. Government accept this shameful condition? In other words, the Federation Government can tomorrow, after Malaysia, close the Causeway and prevent the entry of second-class Malaysia citizens of Singapore. Likewise Sabah and Sarawak can forbid entry of second-class Malaysia citizens from Singapore into the Borneo territories. Is this not a complete sell-out? May I refer you to section 14 of the Immigration Act which is part and parcel of the Malaysia Agreement? Section 14 of the Immigration Act which is part of the Malaysia Agreement provides that we require a so-called internal travel document to go to Borneo. Why call this an internal travel document? Why not call it a passport and visa? Mr Speaker, may I ask this P.A.P. minority Government whether there is any other country in the world where citizens in the same country are forbidden to travel freely within its national boundaries? Mr Speaker, Sir, out of the hundred over countries is there any other parallel? Item 6 of the White Paper has promised the people of Singapore that the fundamental liberties of the people of Singapore will be adequately safeguarded in the provisions of the Federation Constitution. But under the Malaysia Agreement our fundamental liberties are all conscribed. They are not protected. They are not safeguarded. There is no need for the Prime Minister to try to conceal these restrictions on the fundamental liberties of second-class citizens of Singapore by making a Ministerial statement on religious freedom. Why does the Prime Minister not come here and say, "Countrymen, all of you have the freedom to breathe fresh air."? It is a right which we already have and which we are now enjoying. Why does the P.A.P. Government agree to all these conscriptions of our fundamental liberties, of our freedom? Let us compare our inferior citizenship status to the citizenship provisions accorded to Sabah and Sarawak. Their citizens will be treated as equals of Malaysia citizens from the 11 Malayan States. They will have no distinction. They will have the same type of citizenship. They will have the same status. Mr Speaker, the second sell-out of the P.A.P. minority Government is the number of seats which the Prime Minister has accepted in the Central Parliament. The first sell-out is on the citizenship rights. The second sell-out is on the number of seats in the Central Parliament. Article 9 of the Malaysia Act provides for 15 members from Singapore, with 1.8 million people, compared to 16 members from Sabah, with a quarter of Singapore's population. We have 1.8 million people and we have only 15 M.P.s. Sabah has only 400,000 people and they have more M.P.s than Singapore. Is this not another P.A.P. sell-out? Sir, to make matters worse, this ratio is fixed, under the Malaysia Act, indefinitely and forever. There is no provision to review the position after a period of time where adjustments can be made to rectify the wrongs perpetrated by the P.A.P. Government. I remember the Prime Minister said in Bukit Panjang sometime early this year during his rural visits that Singapore will have the right to review the position and can increase its representation in the Central Parliament to even 40 or 100 seats if necessary when the time comes. I have searched through the documents and cannot find such a provision. It is my belief that such a provision does not exist. The minority P.A.P. Government has therefore not only sold out the present generation lock, stock and barrel. It has sold out the future generations. The Prime Minister told the people that Singapore has accepted less seats compared to Sabah because it will have financial autonomy. He said, without financial autonomy the Federation can hold a future Singapore State Government to ransom. Sir, where is Singapore's financial autonomy? Can the P.A.P. Government tell us Opposition Members where to find it? I have searched through the Constitutional documents during the last few days and I could not find it. There is no such thing as financial autonomy for Singapore. The vital power to legislate on taxes belongs to the Federation Government. Monetary and fiscal policies to create prosperity or a boom or a depression are in the powers of the Federation Government, in other words, basic financial powers on legislation and policies concerning finance belong to the Federation Government. On Income Tax law, from 9th July, 1963, it is written into the Malaysia Agreement that the Singapore Government will have no more powers to introduce even new amendments. It is not only on Income Tax legislation that the Federation Minister of Finance is given full powers. The Federation Government can actually at any time take over the Singapore Income Tax Department; and even for that matter the Customs and Excise Departments. The Federation Government can check the detailed workings of the Singapore Income Tax Department through its Comptroller-General of Income Tax, and also the Customs and Excise Department through its special inspectors. Mr Speaker, Sir, relief from income tax on depreciation, and Orders made under the Industrial Expansion (Relief from Income Tax Ordinance, 1959), shall rest with the Federation Government. These powers are important because they are relevant to industrialisation. On Customs and on Income Tax the Federation Government - 7.01 p.m.

Order. A business motion.

Resolved, "That the proceedings on item 2 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until twelve midnight." - [Dr Toh Chin Chye]

Debate resumed.

Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Customs and Income Tax the Federation Government would not only have the power to legislate, the power to fix the ratio of tax, the power to make regulations, the power to send Federal officers to inspect the day-to-day detailed administration of the Singapore Income Tax Department and the Customs Department, but the power to take back these departments any time. Article 5 of the Financial Agreement between the Singapore and the Federation Governments as contained in Annex J of the Malaysia Agreement lays down clearly "executive authority in respect of the collection in Singapore of customs duties and excise and income tax shall be delegated to the Singapore Government." Mr Speaker, Sir, the operative word is "delegated". It is not the separation of powers between Federal and State. It is different from the List of State powers enumerated, where the Singapore Legislature will in future have jurisdiction over the list of enumerated State powers. The Singapore Government's running of Income Tax and Customs Departments would be delegated by the Federation Government to the Singapore Government. Sir, it is my belief, what is delegated can always be taken back. Article 5 continues: `The Federal Government may revoke this authority 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. 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.' Mr Speaker, Sir, it shows clearly that on any reason given by the Federation Minister for Finance, they can take back the Singapore Income Tax Department and the Customs Department. They can ask the Singapore Income Tax Department to collect all 1964 revenue by 31st March, 1964, and if they find that it is a physical impossibility, they say, "The Singapore Government is not efficient enough," and by the exercise of Article 5 they can take back the Singapore Income Tax Department -

Order. Has the Member for Hong Lim directed his attention to Article 10* in regard to disputes? Article 10 of Annex J reads as follows: Any dispute between the Federal Government and the Singapore Government us to the interpretation or application of this Agreement may be referred by either Government to the Federal Court for determination by that Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 128 of the Federal Constitution.

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, but disputes in these cases, I believe, will be mostly on the quantum of payments, whereas Article 5 will more or less decide on the machinery of collection of taxes. I have studied Articles 8, 9, 10. Sir, as I have said in this Assembly before, what the P.A.P. Government has been fighting for and has been playing up its propaganda in the past few months is to have the right to be a rent collector. The money collected by the Singapore Government from national taxes, according to Article 6 of the Financial Agreement, has to be paid into the Federation Central Bank which will open a Branch Office in Singapore. In other words, the P.A.P. Government is nothing but a rent collector. If the rent collector behaves, or if the boss likes his face, then he is allowed to collect rent, and this rent is to be in the form of cheques, which will have to be paid into the boss's banking account. If the boss does not like him or does not like his face, he will dismiss him and collect the rent himself. Sir, for every dollar of national taxes collected by the rent collector, the boss will take away 40 cents to pay for the cost of the Police, the Army and the Prisons to make the people of Singapore behave themselves. The rent collector is allowed to draw 60 cents from the banking account of the boss to pay for the cost of schools, hospitals, social welfare and all the other services of the State. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that there is financial autonomy for Singapore, with legislative powers under the control of the Federation Government, fiscal and economic policies under the control of the Federation Government, 14 items of powers on finance under the control of the Federation Government, the day-to-day administration of the Income Tax Department and the Customs Department subject to the inspection of the Federation representatives. Moreover all these departments for the collection of taxes can be taken back at any time under some pretext given under Article 5 of the Financial Agreement. I only refer to the main powers of finance given to the Central - I am not referring to the other 14 items of financial powers which the Singapore Government has surrendered to the Federation Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no autonomy in finance. We will only be acting as rent collectors. Sir, is this not another sell-out by the minority P.A.P. Government? The first sell-out is citizenship rights: the second sell-out is representation in the Central Parliament; the third sell-out is financial rights. The fourth sell-out is on the List of State rights given to Singapore, which the P.A.P. minority Government has accepted on behalf of the people of Singapore. If we compare Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the Malaysia Act, which is State rights for the Borneo States, and Part II of the Fourth Schedule to the Malaysia Act, which is State rights for Singapore, we will see that the State rights given to the Borneo States and to Singapore do not differ very significantly. Not only so, the Borneo States during the first five years after Malaysia, can manage to get substantial aid of $500 million, and Singapore will have to advance them more or less an interest-free loan of $150 million. Sabah, with one-quarter of Singapore's population, gets more representation in the Central Parliament than Singapore. The Borneo States, under the proposed Immigration Bill, can restrict the immigration of people from other parts of Malaysia into their territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the State rights given to Sabah, almost equal to the State rights given to Singapore. Sabah has more representation in Parliament although they only have one-quarter of Singapore's population; $500 million free financial aid to Sabah and Sarawak in the space of five years; and $150 million more or less interest-free loan which will cost the Singapore taxpayers $50 million, to be given to Sabah and Sarawak during the course of 15 years. The Borneo States will have the right to restrict immigration into Sabah and Sarawak. Under Article 60 (3) of the Malaysia Act, the Federal Government can restrict the movement of Singapore citizens into the Federation. Under section 14 of the Immigration Bill, Sarawak and Sabah can restrict entry of second-class Malaysian citizens of Singapore into the Borneo States. Sir, what happens? Under section 60 (3) of the Malaysia Act, the Federation Government can stop us from moving across the Causeway. Under section 14 of the Immigration Act, Borneo will prevent us from going to Borneo. What are we like, Sir? Singapore citizens would be like turtles in a stagnant pond. Let us have a closer look and compare the respective State rights reserved for the Borneo States and for Singapore? If we have the two Lists, Part I and Part II, of the Fourth Schedule enumerated and tabulated we will find that the powers given to Singapore and to the Borneo territories are more or less similar. Sir, there are many powers exactly similar given to both places. For instance, medicine and health, family laws, charitable trust, State elections for a period of time. Mr Speaker, these powers are similarly reserved and accorded to both territories. Then there are little sundry powers given to each of the territories which are peculiar to each of them. For instance, Sabah will run Sabah Railways, Singapore will run its own gas works. Mr Speaker, it is of no use for Singapore to have the right to run the Singapore Railway because we do not have one. It is neither useful for Sabah to run a gas works because Sabah does not have any gas works. So Sabah will run the Sabah Railways; Singapore will run Singapore's gas works. Other than all these, there are only two items of importance reserved for Singapore which are not found in the List given to Borneo, namely, the two subjects of education and labour. Sir, let us look at these two items more closely. Let us first talk about labour. In Singapore we face a surplus of labour; in Borneo there is a shortage of labour. Due to the labour shortage there and therefore the rates of wages there are high - it is believed that in Sabah a hard-working lumberman can get from $500 to $700 a month - there is hardly any labour problem. It is the same even in Sarawak. There is not the pressing necessity for a Ministry of Labour. They therefore do not need so-called autonomy in handling their own labour problem, because they hardly have any labour problem. Their main concern is to keep away immigrants, and the Immigration Bill contained in the Malaysia Act has given them the right to prohibit immigrants from entering Sabah and Sarawak, especially immigrants of second-class Malaysia citizens from Singapore. Despite the fact that we are supposed to belong to one country - Malaysia - the people in Singapore cannot go to Borneo to get jobs or do business freely. Second-class Malaysia citizens from Singapore are required to apply for internal travel documents, even to visit Sabah or Sarawak. Which country has such an absurd phenomenum? In other words, on the question of so-called autonomy in labour, Singapore does not get more than what the Borneo States get, because the Borneo States do not require autonomy in labour. What they require is an Immigration Act and they have got it. Secondly, let us look at education. Due to the fact that the Borneo States have not been so developed in many respects compared to Singapore, and education is one of them, there is not the problem relating to the question of education as exists in Singapore. However, on the question of the use of language, Article 6 of the Malaysia Act guarantees the use of the English language for a minimum period of 10 years and the protection of native languages, laws and customs. The so-called autonomy in education given to Singapore does not, therefore, make much substantial difference in the quantum of State rights given to respective territories between Singapore and the Borneo States. I therefore conclude that the respective State rights given to the Borneo States and to Singapore, if they can be measured in quantum, are almost equal. Yet Sabah with one quarter of Singapore's population, gets 16 seats in the Central Parliament, which is one seat more than Singapore's 15 seats. Mr Speaker, Sir, is this not a sell-out? Now, Mr Speaker, four fundamental sell-outs. First citizenship rights; second, the question of representation in Parliament; thirdly, financial powers; and, fourthly, State rights. Singapore has to contribute each year 40 per cent of the national taxes or 28 per cent of all revenue collected. I believe at one time the P.A.P. Government told us that it was 25 per cent. Now it has increased to 28 per cent. In other words, for every dollar of tax, customs duties, traffic fines on poor taxi-drivers, or fines on hawkers, fees from hospitals, and school fees - all types of revenue raised in Singapore under the sun from every citizen of Singapore, every dollar collected in Singapore, we have to pay to the Federation a tribute of 28 cents, 28 per cent of the total revenue collected, or 40 per cent of the national taxes. The amount of revenue contributed to the Federation will increase year by year, because under the Financial Agreement the percentage basis has been used. Moreover, Singapore has to give about $150 million loan, almost free of interest, to the Borneo States, which will cost the Singapore Government about $50 million to raise because interest has to be paid by Singapore on the loan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have computed a small table with the little information and the little time available to me because we have only a few days to study these vital Constitutional documents. I have computed that if we were to give $100 million free-interest loan to the Federation Government - a $100 million 15-year loan, starting with $20 million in 1964, $20 million in 1965, and $20 million in each subsequent year ending in 1968 - we would have to pay $48 million in interest to those persons from whom we have to borrow. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the greatest cheat of the P.A.P. Government. The Singapore Government, before they went to London to sign the sell-out treaty, told us that the main fight was on the $50,000,000 gift to the Borneo States. They went there and signed this sell-out treaty. They gave more than a $100 million contribution as a tribute to the Federation Government each year. In addition, they are giving an interest-free 15-year loan of $100 million with a proviso of reviewing the loan after five years, whether interest should be paid in subsequent years or not; but the proviso is so flexible, that it seems no interest will be paid to Singapore. The payment of interest to Singapore hinges on Singapore's prosperity - Singapore always prospers, even without Malaysia. It is just a natural process. If we compare the budget of 10 years ago with the budget of today, Singapore has prospered many times over. And, therefore, because of that fact, it looks likely that the interest for the subsequent live years will be waived to the Borneo States. Mr Speaker, Sir, working on that basis. I have computed that the cost on the loans which the Singapore Government have to raise for Borneo, paying an average of six per cent interest on a $100 million loan, comes to about $48 million. And if this includes the cost of raising the loans and the administrative expenses, which I estimate at, say, $1 million or $2 million, it makes a grand total of $50 million. It therefore comes to the same thing. A face-saving device whereby the P.A.P. Government can come back and deceive the people again. But, the people will not be deceived. The people have no more trust and no more faith in the P.A.P. Government. The P.A.P. Government tried to explain this huge interest-free loan by saying that half the labour used for the loans would be obtained from Singapore. Now, the Federation Government have denied today that they have ever agreed to that condition. Let us assume that the Federation Government has agreed. Could the P.A.P. Government work out in terms of quantity of labour how much labour Singapore can export to Sabah and Sarawak under this loan? If they are going to build two gas works or a gas works and an electrical station which will eat away the $100 million, I think they will not engage more than a few tens of workmen. Why does the P.A.P. not use the $150 million to develop Singapore whereby Singapore will not only benefit from its development but more labourers will be employed, more shops will get business. This is what we call the multiplier theory.

7.25 p.m. If the $150 million loan is used in the Borneo States and even if they recruit some labour from Singapore, it will only engage 30, 50 or, let us say, 500 of Singapore's labourers; take away 500 of Singapore's unemployed labourers at a cost of $50 million. Those are all the benefits we may get. There is no provision that they must get contractors from Singapore. Can the labour recruited from Singapore and working in Sabah ring up Singapore and order coffee and tea, or buy shirts from Change Alley? No, Sir, but if these loans are being used in Singapore for Singapore's own development, then normally one cent of development expenditure should create three or four cents of money in circulation. A dollar investment creates $3 or $4 or $5 in money circulation, because the workmen will be able to buy things from the shops; the shops get more business; they buy things from the wholesalers; the wholesalers will make more money and order things from overseas; the Harbour Board will be busy; and everybody will be active. But we are not accorded these benefits. We are being sold away. If Singapore has so much money, why borrow a few million dollars from the World Bank at 5� per cent interest? And we must pay � per cent to the World Bank even if we do not draw out the money. We must pay 5� per cent interest with all sorts of strings attached. We have been sold out to the World Bank for a few million dollars. The expenses incurred on the Police, the Prisons and the Armed Forces in the Borneo States would, like Singapore, be incurred by the Federal Government, instead we understand that the two Borneo States will receive substantial financial aid, as I have said, to the extent of $500 million for five years. Singapore has entered into a bad financial bargain. The P.A.P. has sold us out. The difference between Singapore's contribution to the Central Government, and the Borneo States' financial assistance received from the Central Government is, in my calculation, estimated at more than $200 million per year. We have to give to the Federation Government more than $100 million a year. The Borneo States will receive from the Federation Government more than $100 million a year. It makes the total difference to be more than $200 million a year. And this $200 million a year is enough for Singapore to build about 40,000 S.I.T. flats a year or 4,000 clinics or 4,000 creches. Once Malaysia is pushed through and the new Singapore Constitution is allowed to work itself for a few months, the people of Singapore will then see for themselves the extent of this sell-out Malaysia Agreement being put into operation with all the disadvantages working against the people of Singapore. We have so much to lose and so little to gain from the Malaysia Agreement. It is therefore based on this belief that I assess the general elections for the 51 seats to be held in September this year. The P.A.P. Government will not want the people of Singapore -

Before the end of this year.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, even if they want to continue until March next year, they cannot do so. After this sitting is adjourned sine die, there will be many more Back-benchers quitting the Government because they know they will not be nominated as candidates for the next general elections. Many of them will not be nominated. We know who are the people who are not going to be nominated. Even one or two Ministers will not be nominated.

You stack your chips on the Barisan?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the time comes, it will not be just one or two persons quitting the Party. It will be just like the waves rolling out into the ocean, leaving only one or two persons who have the stamina to stand alone. The P.A.P. Government will not want the people of Singapore to see the practical workings of the new Constitution because that will be adverse to the PAP. Instead of reading only in cold print the P.A.P. sell-out schemes, the people of Singapore will be able to see and feel for themselves how Singapore will suffer under the intolerable conditions of the White Paper merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the so-called Common Market agreed to in principle may also work against Singapore because its terms are unfavourable to Singapore. We support the principle of a Common Market, but the terms contained in the Malaysia Agreement must be fair and just to both sides. Pioneer Certificates granted by Singapore will be subject to the approval of the Federation Minister for Finance - the Annex to Annex J of the Malaysia Agreement. Sir, this is vital. In other words, the Federation Government will have the final say in the industrialisation of Singapore. If the Singapore Government issues a Pioneer Certificate to an industry which the Federation Government wants to establish in Petaling Jaya or Johore Bahru, the Federation Government, by virtue of this power granted to it under the Malaysia Act, will be able to block Singapore's industrialisation programme by rejecting Singapore's approval of that pioneer certificate. In other words, if the Federation Government decide to have a tyre factory in Petaling Jaya and not in Jurong, it can refuse, it can veto such a pioneer certificate granted by the Singapore Government. Again, the Federation Government can make things tough for the Singapore Government, as the P.A.P. has also surrendered other rights relevant to industrialisation and industrial promotion. Orders made under the Industrial Expansion (Relief from Income Tax) Ordinance, 1959, will be subject to approval by the Federation Minister for Finance. Sir, the Tariff Advisory Board, which will be in charge of Common Market problems and which will make all the vital decisions, will be controlled by the Federation Government - Annex J. Because of the unfavourable conditions, the people of Singapore may have to suffer an increase in the cost of living due to customs duties being imposed to protect industries in Petaling Jaya or Johore Bahru, but without Singapore receiving any benefits. Is this not another P.A.P. sell-out? Sir, the Malaysia Agreement is meant to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore and is signed by the minority P.A.P. Government. After signing the Agreement, the P.A.P. Government just wants this Assembly to endorse what they have already ratified and agreed upon. The Opposition Parties were not consulted before the Agreement was signed. The draft Constitution was not discussed with the Opposition Parties as was the case with the 1958 Singapore Constitution. Everything is being pushed down our throats. Can the P.A.P. Government accept all the consequences? Can it shoulder this tremendous responsibility? But. Sir, what can we do to a political bankrupt who incurs more debts after his bankruptcy? He is already a bankrupt and therefore he has nothing more to lose. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I read under section 104 of the 1958 Singapore Constitution that even if we are to amend a clause in this temporary and transitional 1958 Singapore Constitution, we will require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Singapore Legislature. With this Malaysia Agreement on which hinges the destiny of 1.8 million people of Singapore and the generations to come, should we not also have a two-thirds majority? We demand that this Malaysia Agreement requires a two-thirds majority and if it is only passed by less than that, the Malaysia Agreement must be repudiated. This Malaysia Agreement should have the minimum of 34 votes out of 50. We have now 50 votes in this Assembly. Two-thirds out of 50 is 34 and the P.A.P. Government must muster 34 votes in order to convince us and the people that even this out-of-date Legislature has approved this sell-out document. Sir, I have said at the beginning of my speech that the Malaysia Agreement must be looked at from two aspects. Firstly, it is basically a sell-out treaty. Secondly, in consideration of its sell-out, the P.A.P. has managed to wriggle out for its own benefit with built-in safeguards and provisions to help the P.A.P. in the future, if it has any more future. I used to read the dreams of a Japanese military man - I have forgotten his name, but I think it was Tanaka - who submitted his dreams of a Japanese Empire to the Japanese emperor many decades ago. Under his notorious plan, he hoped that by conquering Manchuria, which would be used as a base against China, Japan would be able from there onwards to create a Japanese-sponsored Greater East-Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our Singapore Tanaka, who is not only the planner but the prima donna, who is not only the plotter, but the actor, has ambitions, however vain and idle we may look at them, to follow the path of conquest envisaged by Tanaka many decades ago. The idea of a Cuba in Singapore was born in the fertile imagination of the Prime Minister. I heard of it as early as 1959. He coined the words "a Cuba in Singapore". Nobody else coined those words. It was a good propaganda line to frighten certain people and those people, I must say, swallowed it. Sir, when the White Paper proposals were conceived, the P.A.P. was in the doldrums. Since then, many thanks to the Work Brigade, the P.A.P. planned the visits to the rural constituencies. I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that lately not only the Work Brigade surrounded the Prime Minister but at every visit he requires about 150 plainclothes detectives - this is what I have heard - and many members of the Singapore Infantry Regiment -

Gila!

Chaps fired crackers!

The Member for Siglap should not interrupt because her name, I believe, will not be in the next list of nominations for candidature. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leaders thought that there was some chance of staging a come-back after all this fanfare. The P.P.S.O., the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, the possible cancellation of Opposition Party symbols on nomination day, were thought to be sufficient to crush the Opposition. Since they have been slowly building up a ray of hope, however faint it looks to us in the Opposition, the P.A.P. leaders have strong powers of auto-suggestion; a way must be prepared for the conquest of Malaysia should such an opportunity arise, and such an opportunity should never be missed. Like the Japanese venture into world conquest step by step, so is the P.A.P.'s future dream of conquering Malaysia also step by step. In 10 years' or at the most 15 years' time when the Tunku retires from active politics, the course is clear for a P.A.P. Prime Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, what vain and childish hopes! They are nothing but a pipe-dream. The P.A.P. cannot even hope to go as far as the Japanese did. They reached the Australian coast and nearly conquered Hawaii. But in the first step of the P.A.P.'s dream of conquest, which is contained -

How far is yours?

First, my dream is to knock out the P.A.P. In the first step of the P.A.P.'s dream of conquest, which is contained in Article 95 of the Malaysia Act, the P.A.P. was defeated in this Assembly last Thursday. Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many hundreds of additional steps to go. In the first step, Article 95, which the P.A.P. Government traded for selling out the rights of the people, a special exception was made to the P.A.P. Government to conduct the Federal elections under P.A.P. control. Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, even in the first step, the P.A.P.'s dream was smashed. That is why they have been so demoralised these few days -

Most cheerful.

The Minister for Culture has never been thinner in his life! There are hundreds of additional steps to go. Articles 95 and 96 with special provisions written into the Malaysia Act give the P.A.P. Government the power to conduct elections to the Federal seats and delineate boundaries according to their own wish, avoiding the Federal Elections commission. If the undemocratic Federal Elections Bill under Article 95 had been passed last week, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, nomination day could have been held on Saturday, 17th August, 1963, and after a second sweep - if that is possible; that is, if the Internal Security Council which met in Cameron Highlands last week was prepared to be a scapegoat for such a move - the Opposition Parties could be paralysed for a few weeks from such a move. It would be likely that the U.P.P., whose former symbol of three rings, and now changed to that of a key, anticipating the P.A.P. move that it cannot be used -

Beck's beer.

Very good. Beck's beer smashed the P.A.P. in the Hong Lim by-election with a majority win of nearly 5,000 -

This time, the wrong lock -

Order.

Polling Day, in my opinion, would therefore be on the 2nd or 3rd of September, immediately after the Malaysia celebrations with all the floats and fanfare, the whole town going wild and the concerts of foreign artistes from overseas will be at their zenith - all at public expense. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. hopes to win, not by a clean and honest election, but by fraud and by rigging the election as they did in the referendum campaign, so that they can get a good number of seats. If such a situation arises, the general elections for the 51 seats will follow immediately after the elections for the 15 seats. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe the electoral registers can be used two or three times. They do not need to revise them. They can use it today for one election, and they can use it tomorrow for another election. But in case the P.A.P. loses the elections for the 15 seats, in spite of all the rigging, then there is a second chance because transitional provisions have been built in Part VII of the new Singapore Constitution. Clause 98 of the Singapore Constitution will allow the P.A.P. Government to carry on until June 1964. But, of course, this is now unlikely because we expect some P.A.P. Back-benchers to quit and there will be no meeting this year to approve the 1964 Budget. In the meantime, the P.A.P. Government will devise some scheme to retrieve the position. However, in my opinion, as I have said, the P.A.P. Government will not last that long. Sir, the P.A.P. hopes that Singapore will therefore be a stepping stone to getting greater political powers in Malaysia. All these provisions in the Malaysia Constitution and in the Malaysia Act and in the Singapore Constitution were meant, in my opinion, to fulfil this dream. For instance, Sir, in Part II of the Fourth Schedule in the Malaysian Act enumerating State rights for Singapore, they deliberately provide that the Singapore Government could have powers over elections to the State Assembly until August 1968. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. Government can rig the 15-seat election in August, they will be able to rig and win the 51-seat elections in September or October, thereby becoming the State Government as well as having a number of seats in the Central Parliament. From there, Sir, half the battle is won to fulfil the dream of a P.A.P. Prime Minister of Malaysia. As I have said, this is a false hope and an idle dream. Remember in the Hong Lim by-election, they were ready with their fanfare of lion and dragon dances for a P.A.P. victory in Hong Lim. We all know that big money is now being used in Hong Lim -

Order. May I remind the Member for Hong Lim that the Hong Lim by-election is not the subject we are debating now? It is past. Can we come to the motion?

Mr Deputy Speaker, another proviso which the P.A.P. is trying to get is the last-minute request for the right of detention without trial under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. It is vital to the fulfilment of their dream. Sometimes it is very handy to have a law which we can use to lock up political opponents without trial and calling them gangsters, because the Government do not have to prove it in the courts of law. Get two or three gangsters, get some officials from the State Advocate-General's Department to put a chop - the man goes in under section 55 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. We warn all those civil servants who play with the P.A.P. in these acts of suppression of political opponents that the day of retribution might not be too far away. Section 55 of this Ordinance is useful to nip in the bud aspiring politicians or effective political opponents of the P.A.P. regime. Moreover, Sir, in Annex K to the Malaysian Agreement, concerning the agreement on Television and Radio, it is vital when the P.A.P. decides to broadcast so-called P.A.P. achievements in its new short-wave frequency radio across the seas to the Borneo States, spreading P.A.P. propaganda to the Borneo territories. Section 95 of the new Singapore Constitution is also vital. As in the case of the 1958 Singapore Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should remain in office for only six months after a new government is formed so that any future government will decide, subject to the Agong's approval, who will be the next Yang di-Pertuan Negara during that Party's period of office. We are afraid that section 95 will want to avoid such a democratic proviso contained in the 1958 Singapore Constitution. Article 99 of the Singapore Constitution concerns the P.S.C. Both sections 95 and 99 are important, in case the P.A.P. Government can win the next State Government. Of course, we know they cannot. But I must say that no future government has an obligation to recognise every P.A.P. appointment. If the P.A.P. appointments had been done on the sole criterion of merit, then I am sure any future Government would recognise these appointments. But if the appointments are not done on the basis of merit, but were done for some other purposes, then, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let it be put on record that no future Government has got the necessity to meet this obligation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are only some of the provisions which the P.A.P. hope to save them from collapse and prop them up for future capture of power. Sir, they are only false hopes. The P.A.P. are finished. They should have resigned last Thursday, when the undemocratic Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill was defeated, through which the P.A.P. hoped to rig the elections. Sir, the P.A.P.'s days are numbered. Today and tomorrow, we will hear the departing swan song of the P.A.P. leaders. It is a pity, Sir, that the future Chamber will be a place less interesting than now, without the P.A.P. leaders. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very sorry that in the future sittings of this Assembly, we will not have the P.A.P. leaders, and we will not have the pleasure to come and debate with them. An hon. Member: You miss us.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we will see them at C.P.A. functions where we will meet ex-Assemblymen.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I just wish to reply to certain points made by the Member for Farrer Park relating to the Singapore Constitution. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, will answer all the other questions which have been raised on matters of finance. First, I would like to make it quite clear that in the House of Commons, the Malaysia Act that was introduced and accepted by the House of Commons referred only to Article IV of the Heads of Agreement relating to Malaysia. Article IV states: `The Government of the United Kingdom will take such steps as may be appropriate and available to them to secure the enactment by the Parliament...'

Point of order, Sir.

Point of order?

What page is it? Let us follow it carefully.

The page here is page 1. `... providing for the relinquishment, as from Malaysia Day, of Her Britannic Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore...'. This acceptance by the House of Commons that on Malaysia day British jurisdiction over Singapore will cease is the essence of the Malaysia Act which was passed in the House of Commons. The rest of the Blue Book which was mentioned by the Member for Farrer Park was only a document tabled in the House, but it was not subject to debate at all. Neither did it have to go through three Readings. I have now a copy of the Blue Book. It did not say either that it is a Command Paper. Now, coming to Article 69 of the Malaysia Bill and Article 90 of the Singapore Constitution relating to amendments to the Singapore Constitution. Article 69 in the Malaysia Bill, at page 47, refers to safeguards for the constitutional position of Singapore. Article 69 (1) reads: `No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Governor...'. The Constitution here refers to the Federal Constitution. In other words, the Federal Parliament cannot change the Singapore Constitution without the concurrence of the Singapore Government. The purpose of this Article 69 is to protect certain rights as embodied in the Singapore Constitution. You will see that a similar clause refers to the constitutional position of the Borneo States. This is in Article 66, at page 45, of the Malaysia Bill. Article 66 (2) reads: `No amendment shall be made to the Constitution [in this case again it refers to the Federal Constitution] without the concurrence of the Governor of the Borneo State or each of the Borneo States concerned,...'. In other words, the Federal Parliament cannot amend either the Singapore Constitution or the Constitution of Sabah or the Constitution of Sarawak without the approval of the Governments of Sabah, Sarawak or Singapore. That is the meaning of Article 69. Therefore. Article 69 does not in any way conflict with Article 90 of the Singapore Constitution where it is stipulated that any alterations to the Singapore Constitution would require a two-thirds majority of the Legislature.

Point of order.

Point of order.

Is it a point of order?

Point of order. Dr Lee.

The Deputy Prime Minister was reading clause 69, on page 47. Did he mention the "Government" or the "Governor"? I just want to get it clear. He was saying "Government", but it says here "Governor".

That is not a point of order. It is a point of clarification.

The Member for Queenstown should really know the constitutional position if he aspires to be a parliamentarian. "Governor", of course, in our particular case, will refer to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and the constitutional position indicates that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara cannot take any action without the advice of the Government. Article 32 (b) of the Singapore Constitution, referring to the tenure of office of Members of the House, and a point on which the Opposition is in some doubt, says that if a person ceases to be a Member of a Party upon whose platform he has been elected to this Legislature, he should immediately cease to be a Member of the Legislature. Of course, it rubs the corns of certain Members in this Assembly. Let us take the 14 Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They came into this House on the P.A.P. ticket, and if they have had any decency, they would have resigned and contested on their own personalities and on their own personal qualities. They left or they crossed the House after having signed a document stating that if for any reason they should cease to be Members of the Party they would leave the Assembly. But they did not keep their word in that written document. At least the Member for Hong Lim had the courage to seek a fresh mandate and he won the by-election. We give him his due. But the 14 Barisan Sosialis Members are quite despicable. They are now sitting in this House under false pretences.

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order.

What does he mean by "despicable"? We object to a word like that.

The Member has taken objection to the word. Since the hon. Member has objected to it, I think the Deputy Prime Minister should withdraw it.

Since he objects to the word "despicable", can I say contemptible?

Does he mean to insult a Member of the House?

I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister is insulting any hon. Member in this Assembly. If that is so, naturally the Chair will call him to withdraw.

Has he withdrawn it?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not propose using unparliamentary language in this House. I do not believe the Speaker has ever in these years ruled that "despicable" and "contemptible" are unparliamentary words. Now, let me continue with Article 32 (b). I am sorry for the Member for Anson that he finds himself in this position. He won the Anson by-election but he has lost his Party. So the question is, where does he stand? However, the Member for Anson and the 14 Members from the Barisan Sosialis need not particularly worry at time moment because their seats in this present Assembly are secured by the temporary and transitional provisions of Article 96. Article 96 of the transitional provisions - it is a transitional provision - states: `(1) The Legislative Assembly established by the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, [meaning this Assembly] shall remain in being and shall be deemed to be the Legislative Assembly established by this Constitution, and accordingly -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this may well be the last sitting of this Assembly. For many on the Opposition Benches, this will positively be their last appearance. From today until Thursday, they will be accorded the privilege which I am told, Sir, is given to every condemned man before he walks his last mile. He is allowed to have his last cigarette before he is shot at dawn. But here, Sir, we are a democratic Assembly and we therefore allow Opposition Members, especially the Member for Queenstown, to make his last speech starting from 8.00 or 8.30 last night -

No. Six-thirty.

Six-thirty till late this afternoon; lest it be said that we have silenced him forever too soon.

You cannot do it.

For the Barisan Sosialis confrontationists in particular, this sitting will mark the end of their term of political life and the beginning of a long term of a different kind.

Gaol, is it not?

The countdown has already begun -there are only 30 days (yesterday there were 31 days) before Malaysia. When the Malaysia sun rises on 31st August -

It will be the P.A.P. downfall.

- the red star of the Barisan Sosialis will surely set. It is appropriate, Sir, that the last sittings of this Assembly should be in the month of July -that July should see the culmination and the victory of a battle begun in this Assembly. It was exactly two years ago this month, 20th July, 1961, that the battle for merger and Malaysia was started in this Chamber between the pro-Communist anti-Malaysia forces on the one hand and the pro-Malaysia nationalist forces on the other. It began, Sir, if you will recollect, with the Prime Minister moving a one-sentence motion which read: `That this House expresses its confidence in the Government.'. Nine simple words which set in train a sequence of events which today culminates in this 200-word motion by the Prime Minister, proclaiming the victory of the pro-Malaysia nationalist forces over the anti-national confrontationists -

Pro-imperialists.

- in the Barisan Sosialis. Two years ago when the Prime Minister moved his motion of confidence, the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis were besides themselves with joy that through their last-minute treachery they had brought about the defeat of their own Party and their own colleagues in the by-election at Anson. That was two years ago. The fruit of their treachery was an exultant Member for Anson who, if you will remember, Sir, reappeared in this Chamber with shouts of "Merdeka". He did not know then that he was but a political flea in the Barisan fur. He was brought into this Chamber by his hosts, the Barisan Sosialis. Now that his hosts are about to die, the flea in the Barisan fur must either find a new host or face slow starvation himself. Two years ago, thanks to the treachery of the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors, the Government, it is true, was in a difficult position. Had it been weak, had it lacked moral courage, it could have compromised with the pro-Communist anti-merger elements, and carried on with a comfortable majority. If, as the Barisan Sosialis claim and as the S.P.A. claim today, the P.A.P. were interested only in clinging to power, the easiest and the simplest thing to do would have been to play ball with the anti-national and anti-merger elements and so assured ourselves of a comfortable majority. But the price we would have to pay would be betrayal of merger and the espousal eventually of an isolated Singapore. That was a price which we were not prepared to pay, even to assure ourselves of a comfortable majority. Though our ranks had been depleted by the treachery and betrayal, we decided on 20th July, 1961, to hit back at the Communists - not because they were Communists but because we believed that the Communists were out to betray merger and Malaysia. Instead of being cowed and demoralised by our defeat at Anson, we decided on 20th July, 1961, to take on the Communists and those who had been mesmerised by the myth of Communist invincibility, as some of those who deserted from our Party to join the Barisan Sosialis Communist ranks were, that the non-Communist, democratic Left is not a feeble, stupid and bankrupt political force. That is what we wanted to prove.

It is not a force.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have got photographs here which will show who is the political force. But I will come to that later. I will keep the little treat for them later on. We want to show how enfeebled and despicable the Barisan Sosialis have become. They were laughed out in every constituency to which the Prime Minister went, where they tried to heckle him. But I shall come forward with evidence of photographs showing little girls, Sir, -

Wayang.

- who have not yet cut their milk teeth -

Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt the Minister for Culture. I think so far his prelude and preamble to his speech have met the points which Opposition Members have raised. If he can now just concentrate on the motion and the amendment, it will be better.

With due respect, this motion deals with the battle for merger, and it is necessary, Sir, to show why the Member for Queenstown has brought in such an amendment, and to show that this is the culmination of a battle begun two years ago in this Assembly - the battle for merger and Malaysia - and that this motion by the Prime Minister is an epitaph which should be put over the Barisan Sosialis grave. We wanted to show the Communists that once they started opposing merger and Malaysia to which their Party was committed - merger was the platform on which they were elected, merger was the platform on which every P.A.P. Assemblyman was elected - that once they decided to oppose this essential plan in the Government's programme, the fight was on. Sir, we wanted to show the Communists and their performing fleas that lived off them that the non-Communist, democratic Left can compete and win against the Communists in the battle for the hearts and minds of the people. We know that Singapore had been chosen by the Communists as their Yenan for the extension of Communist power throughout Malaysia. If the Communists were contained and paralysed in Singapore, then their auxiliaries in the rest of the Malaysian territories would also be weakened. Therefore, Sir, the Communists on 20th July, 1961, miscalculated when they thought that we would take their betrayal lying down. They thought that after our defeat in Hong Lim and at Anson, we the non-Communist Left would be too demoralised and too frightened to fight back, is I have said, Sir, they under-estimated the resilience of the non-Communist Left. Far from running away and hiding, we reconvened the Assembly on 20th July, 1961, and brought in this nine-ward motion of confidence. It was the Communists who were taken aback by this show of fight. If you will recollect, those who are now in the Barisan Sosialis, especially the Member for Nee Soon, was pleading with the Government not to proceed with this motion of confidence. They were not yet quite ready for a showdown with the non-Communist Left. They were hoping still to stay in the Government and in the Party in an effort to capture them both. As you know, Sir, despite their pleas not to proceed with the motion of confidence, we insisted on a vote being taken on the motion of confidence. What happened, Sir? - the first defeat, the Communists abstained! They were forced out of the Party and the Government to form the Barisan Sosialis. That was how the battle for merger was started in this Assembly two years ago. From then on, Sir, it was a relentless battle between the Communists and the democratic non-Communist Left. The issue was merger and Malaysia. Today looking back, the more intelligent Communists realise that the major blunder they made was in making merger and Malaysia the issue on which to try their strength with the non-Communist Left. That was their first major blunder - first betrayal - and secondly, testing their strength with the non-Communist Left on the issue of merger and Malaysia. Had they been more intelligent, had they not allowed their thinking to be distorted by infantile slogans, they could have slowed down the pace of merger and Malaysia not by resisting merger but by enthusiastically coming out in support of merger and Malaysia. We, for our own part, had conic to the conclusion that for a variety of reasons the Communists, though theoretically supporting merger, in fact, were not in favour of merger. But many of the Federation leaders had been inclined to view merger as a necessary part of Communist strategy to take over Singapore and the Federation. That is why Federation leaders repeatedly said that there would be no merger within the foreseeable future, because they believed that merger was a Communist threat to take over the Federation. Though we believed otherwise, we could not hope to convince the Federation leaders that merger was not, in fact, in the interests of the Communists, it was not part of their strategy. They had decided on some other strategy. Therefore, Sir, the only people who could convince the Federation leaders of the correctness of our analysis were the Communists themselves - the Barisan Sosialis. And that is what the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis did for us. They helped to convince the Federation leaders that merger was not a Communist threat. Remember, Sir, when the Tunku first announced his proposal for merger and Malaysia, the Communists obliged by openly coming out in opposition to merger. They further obliged us by carrying the opposition to merger and Malaysia by betraying the P.A.P. candidate in favour of the Member for Anson who was opposed to merger and who was a long time an advocate of an independent Singapore under the protection of the United Nations. In other words, Sir, not only were the Barisan Sosialis able to convince the Federation leaders, but the Communists also provided proof that they were opposed to merger, not only verbally but they were also prepared to go to any extent to halt merger. Therefore, Sir, by their betrayal of the P.A.P. candidate - it is ironical, Sir, poetic justice - the Communists provided convincing proof of our thesis that they were, in fact, opposed to merger and that merger was not a plan for a Communist take-over. Therefore, the more violently the Communists fought merger, the more enthusiasm was generated in the Federation for merger. The more they shouted, "No merger," the more the Federation leaders were convinced that if merger was not good for the Communists, it must be good for the Federation. In other words, Sir, without wanting to, but by their own stupidity, the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis accelerated the pace of merger and Malaysia. They became the unwitting catalysts of merger and Malaysia. And so, Sir, we have planned to give Malaysia Medals on 31st August. [Laughter] And we are printing a special Medal out of tin for the Barisan Sosialis. At least without wanting to, without knowing it, they also contributed towards the realisation of Malaysia. I do not know when the Communists will come to write their history of the Barisan Sosialis' contribution to the Communist cause, but I am quite sure, Sir, that the bones of the Barisan will be dug up and re-buried elsewhere. Sir, this was only one of the many blunders they made during the course of the battle for merger and Malaysia. They blundered, Sir, not because they are intrinsically stupid but because they made the initial mistake of opposing what was "historically inevitable". This is a phrase which all Communists constantly use. Fortunately for us, the Barisan Sosialis tried very hard to be good Communists, but they are the biggest fumblers of Communist techniques and blunderers on behalf of the Communist cause in Singapore and in Malaya. They blundered because they opposed what was historically inevitable. We told them so during the debate on 20th July, 1961. We warned them that they had embarked on a course of action which would land the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen in disaster. At that time, they were confident. Mr Lim Ching Siong was still running around; Mr James Puthucheary was still running around. At that time, they laughed and cheered. They said, "No," and that we will be buried. Sir, today this 200-word motion that the Prime Minister has moved will, as I said, Sir, be the epitaph that will preface the impending demise of the Barisan Sosialis. Two years ago, many of the Barisan Sosialis Members opposite, mesmerised by the myth of Communist invincibility, deserted the P.A.P. for the Communist camp, because they never for one moment believed that the non-Communist Left would have the stamina, the courage or the intelligence to outwit and circumscribe the Communists, and bring the battle for merger and Malaysia to a victorious conclusion. They saw, on the other hand, in the Malayan Communist Party a movement built and forged over a period of 30 years or more. They saw behind it the resources, experience and organisation accumulated over many decades. As against the M.C.P., therefore, they saw what they believed to be a young non-Communist Left-wing movement whose only virtue was that their supporters firmly believe in their non-Communism, in merger and Malaysia.

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, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying earlier, the battle for merger and Malaysia commenced in this Chamber when the Barisan Sosialis Members left us in the belief that by joining with the Communists in opposing Malaysia and merger, they were on the winning side. They believed that the young non-Communist Left-wing movement could not take on a powerful experienced M.C.P. with 30 years of experience, organisation and resources behind it. The Communists, by intimidation, by pressure of all kinds, and by carefully staging demonstrations and mass support, convinced the Barisan Sosialis Members opposite that they were riding on the wave of the future. Well, Sir, two years after the commencement of the battle for merger and Malaysia, we of the non-Communist Left managed to shatter the illusion that the Communists have the masses behind them in the battle for merger and Malaysia. It took a long time to convince the Barisan Sosialis confrontationists that, in embarking upon this dangerous course of opposing what was historically inevitable, they were in grave peril of being disowned by their own people. The referendum was the first occasion which exposed the Communist lie that they have the masses behind them in the battle against merger and Malaysia. Of course, the Barisan Sosialis are now trying to explain away their defeat at the referendum by claiming that the referendum was rigged. In fact, the Member for Queenstown spent the best part of the evening trying to show that the referendum proved nothing. May I ask the Member for Queenstown, and since the Member for Thomson seems to echo the voice of his boss, or rather their second-rate script writers, why, if the Member for Queenstown believed that the referendum was rigged and he had evidence, did he not take steps to challenge the verdict of the referendum in the courts? Again, why, if the referendum was rigged, did Mr Lim Ching Siong, just before the counting began at the Badminton Hall, tell the newspapers that he was pretty confident that the vast majority of the people would cast blank votes? If he believed that the referendum was rigged why did he make this prediction that the blank votes would out-number the votes for merger and Malaysia? Again, Sir, if the Communists believed that the referendum was rigged, why then did their cohort of school boys and school girls gather outside the Badminton Hall with banners and fire-crackers to celebrate the anticipated victory of the anti-Malaysia forces over the pro-Malaysia forces? Why, if they believed the referendum was rigged, did they go to all this trouble? Again, why, if the referendum was rigged, did they, just before the counting began, spend so much time examining the sealed ballot boxes to satisfy themselves that there was nothing improper and irregular about the referendum procedure? Again, why, if the referendum was rigged, did they spend hours watching the Count without raising any objection that there was anything irregular? Again, why, if they believed that the referendum was rigged, did the Barisan Sosialis watchdogs, together with their legal adviser present at the Badminton Hall, when it became obvious that their cause had suffered a decisive defeat, quitely call it a day and go to sleep on the empty counting tables? Why, Sir, if they believed that the referendum was rigged, did they not spend time protesting? Again, why, after the results were announced, did the Member for Queenstown and his friends demand a recount? Surely, if the Member for Queenstown believed that the referendum had been rigged, he would not have asked for a recount of what he claimed to be a rigged referendum? May I quote one authority as to the honesty of the referendum, which I know the Barisan Sosialis confrontationists dared not contradict? Because even in Indonesia the referendum results in Singapore had never been questioned. A number of its spokesmen have conceded, whatever may be the case elsewhere, that the referendum in Singapore has shown that there is popular support in Singapore for merger and Malaysia. [Interruption] The Barisan Sosialis, for obvious reasons, cannot contradict this authority. Recently while I was having my dinner, a Barisan Sosialis Member came to me and I said, "I hear over the radio that the talks in Manila have had a happy outcome." He was most agitated and said, "I must go and tell this to my colleagues." That is why I say that is one authority they cannot contradict. No heckling, Sir, no protest. [Interruption]

Order. I do not know why the Minister for Culture invites heckling. There should be no heckling in this Chamber.

This is one occasion when lack of heckling proves something.

Heckling is completely out of order in this Chamber. Members have been guilty of heckling and they have been completely out of order.

Perhaps, Sir, the best evidence of all is that the referendum accurately reflected the wishes of the people of Singapore on merger and Malaysia with the utter contempt and dislike the people have for the Barisan Sosialis today. Every time the Communists describe merger and Malaysia as a sell-out, as the Member for Queenstown did for the best part of one evening and one afternoon, and the referendum as phoney, they only succeed in helping to consolidate the 72 per cent of the people who voted for the White Paper. These 72 per cent know that they voted for the White Paper, why they voted for the White Paper, and that they voted for it freely, without compulsion, without any rigging, because they were satisfied with its terms. So the Member for Queenstown can keep on saying that the referendum is phoney, the referendum is rigged, the referendum is dishonest, but the 72 per cent who went to put their crosses on the ballot papers for Alternative A know what they did, why they did; and every time the Member for Queenstown and the Barisan Sosialis keep on trying to put forward this slogan, they are helping to consolidate the 72 per cent. For that, we thank them for helping us in the battle for merger and Malaysia. These 72 per cent knew that every time the Communists talked about phoney merger, phoney referendum they were telling falsehoods. Seventy-two per cent of the people became convinced that the Barisan Sosialis Communists are capable of uttering falsehoods, because they know they voted, why they voted; so when the Barisan Sosialis leaders talked about falsehoods and phoney merger, they said, "These people are capable of telling falsehoods." Mr Lim Hong Bee is another authority they dared not question.

Who is he?

Mr Lim Hong Bee, who is the spokesman of the Malayan Communist Party in London was quite right when just before the referendum campaign began, he castigated the Barisan Sosialis leaders as feeble wobblers in his magazine, The Malayan Monitor. He castigated them bitterly, for which there was no reply, no come-back, from the Barisan Sosialis. He castigated them bitterly for having fallen into what he called a political trap by the decision to campaign for blank votes with a long virulent editorial against the Barisan Sosialis for having fallen into a political trap by their decision to campaign for blank votes, because - he did not say so but it was quite clear, if we read between the lines - by this blunder on the part of the Barisan Sosialis and their advisers, the Malayan Communist movement, or the Malayan Communists, were for the first time put in a position where the carefully prefabricated myth that they had the masses behind them could be effectively challenged and destroyed in a straight constitutional fight between the democratic non-Communist forces and the pro-Communists. The Communists had never, ever, put themselves in a position where they had to try constitutional strength between the Communist and non-Communist forces. They have either fought for it on a united front basis or on some basis kept out of elections altogether. But this was the first time, thanks to the blunder of the Barisan Sosialis leaders, that the Communists were put in a position of having to try its strength in a constitutional fight between the non-Communist forces and the pro-Communists. The Communists had been trapped into campaigning for blank votes because they believed that the blank votes would not be counted separately. I think even the Member for Hong Lim - he is a little bit shrewder than the Barisan Sosialis leaders - also thought that they had possibly, including himself, fallen into a trap, because the blank votes would show the extent of Communist influence, and votes for the White Paper would show the extent of non-Communist influence in Singapore. The blank votes were, in fact, counted separately, and less than 25 per cent of the electors - and that predominantly in the rural areas - could be influenced by the Communists as at September 1962. It is very important, Sir. On that day, the Statistics showed the organised might of the Communists and showed a few opportunist like the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson that at the most they could mobilise or influence 25 per cent of the electors, and that, again, predominantly in the rural areas where what they call the P.A.P. radio and P.A.P. television could not reach the masses. That is an omission which was speedily rectified. But as at September 1962, throughout the whole of Singapore, the Communists could only mislead 25 per cent of the people. Therefore, Sir, the myth of Communist mass influence has been effectively destroyed. For the first time the people of Singapore realised with relief and joy that the Communist movement in Singapore, the so-called citadel of the Communist movement in Malaysia, the Yennan of Malaysia was after all a giant with feet of clay. Since 1947, the Communists, with clever organisational technique, such as carefully arranged and disciplined mass meetings of 30,000 and 40,000 people, the manipulation of unions by staging riots and engineering violence between police and school children, the Communists had built up an image of irresistible strength and unchallengeable mass influence. This image helped the Communists to cow and neutralise large numbers of people who feared them, who feared their strength and who were therefore not prepared to show their disagreement with Communist policies. Therefore, when the Communists began the battle against merger and Malaysia, they hoped to capitalise on this image of the invincible, powerful, and irresistible Communist Party. But the referendum became, thanks to the stupidity of the Karl Marxists and Change Alley Lenins in the Barisan Sosialis, a straight trial of strength between the Communists and the democratic non-Communists. We broke the spell, for the first time, of Communist invincibility and irresistible influence in Singapore. We are proud that we of the non-Communist Left who, two years ago, when they deserted us, were in a difficult situation, who have been reviled by the Barisan Sosialis as feeble, vacillating and purposeless social democrats, have helped to break the Communist spell of invincibility. If for no other reason, Sir, whatever happens to us, we shall be satisfied that we in the P.A.P. have been able for the first time in 30 years to break the myth, the humbug that the Communists are invincible. This achievement of ours is something to contribute to the cause of democracy in Singapore. For nothing else, even if our houses and factories are discounted, this one achievement of ours, that after 30 years we have proved in a straight constitutional fight that the Communist myth of invincibility is hollow, empty, a lie, is something. And as a result of the referendum, we have freed the people of Singapore from their fear of the Communists. It was fear, intimidation, the belief that if you oppose the Communists they will come back to power and settle scores with you. And I have some photographs here which I will show later on which will show that for the first time we had the people of Singapore laughing, jeering and cheering at the Communists. That is what happened, Sir. But that is a thing which I shall come to later. An hon. Member: Better have your head examined!

Sir, my head at least will always be where it is even if it is examined, but lots of gentlemen will be minus their little craniums after 31st August. [Interruption] We have helped to instil in the people of Singapore a new confidence and a new hope through the success of the battle for merger and Malaysia against the opposition of the Communists. We have convinced the people that if the non-Communist majority of the people are united, they can defeat the Communists and their brainless stooges any time, anywhere. At least that is the little contribution we have made to the cause of democracy, to the cause of national solidarity in Singapore. As I have said, Sir, the Change Alley Lenins in the Barisan Sosialis realise today that the referendum was the beginning of the end for them. They know that the referendum was their death sentence. That is why - they cannot explain it away - they have to keep on repeating the falsehood that the referendum was rigged, that it was not a true indication of the people's wishes. They are doing this not in order to win over the 72 per cent who have refused to be influenced by them. That is not their purpose. They know that. They are repeating this falsehood that the referendum was rigged in order to retain their wavering hold over the 25 per cent whom they misled into casting blank votes. That is the purpose, not because of winning over the 72 per cent. They know they have lost. They can never win them over. But now they have to preserve the 25 per cent whom they have misled. It is no longer a question, as far as the Barisan Sosialis confrontationists are concerned, of their winning more converts but of holding on to the little they have. That is the position. So, therefore, Sir, after the referendum, even if the Barisan Sosialis Back-benches do not know it today, but the people who do a little bit of thinking in the Barisan Sosialis knew that after the September referendum, the battle for merger and Malaysia took on a new phase. It was now a battle between the Communists and the non-Communist Left for the hearts and minds of the 25 per cent. That was the battle, not for the 72 per cent but for the 25 per cent. So long as the 72 per cent of the non-Communist votes remain united and not split by non-Communist adventurers in search of loot and prey, we in the P.A.P. are convinced that we can detach a substantial part of the 25 per cent the Communists deluded, and we can do this not by bullets, unless, of course, the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis in their desperation take to sticks, stones, broken bottles and hand-grenades. If they do not do that, we can win over - not by bullets but by ballots - a substantial part of the 25 per cent, detach the 25 per cent from the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis confrontationists. You will notice, Sir, that the tin-pot Lenins in the Barisan Sosialis are not as perky as they were two years ago when, following the betrayal of their own Party at Anson, they triumphantly led into this Chamber the Member for Anson. For two years, they prophesied disaster for us if we persisted in our battle for merger and Malaysia. "The day will come," they said, "when the masses will be chasing the P.A.P. leaders down the street." Then there came the day when the Member for Nee Soon came clean-shaven to this Chamber, and I knew then that, like the Biblical Samson whose strength lay in his hair, there was no fight left in the Barisan Sosialis. That was purely a symbol of what was going on in the Barisan Sosialis and the state of their minds. They knew then - and they know it now - that it is they who will one day have to run away from the masses and possibly seek refuge in islands outside the territorial jurisdiction of Malaysia after 31st August.

Hear, hear! Quite right.

This is no wild prophecy, Sir. One thing that the Barisan Sosialis cannot hold against us is that our predictions and warnings - purely to help them out - have not come true. We have said that come what may there will be Malaysia, as sure as the sun rises. It is true that when last Thursday the opportunist Right-wing S.P.A. together with the Members for Anson, Joo Chiat and the U.P.P. ganged up to defeat the Bill for the elections to the Central Parliament and forced a premature resignation of the Government, the Barisan Sosialis Members were filled with hope -

What is wrong?

- that Malaysia may not after all come about. I was told that during tea-time on that day the Member for Anson, to the delight of the Barisan Sosialis, was telling everyone that he was waiting for the kill that night. The Barisan Sosialis Members, I was told, were prancing about the corridors of this Chamber besides themselves with joy. That was on Thursday. Today is Wednesday. There has been no kill. The Government is very much alive and kicking and more than somewhat cheerful. But not so the Opposition United Front, and least of all the paper matadors who were poised for the kill on Thursday. What happened is that while they flourished their cloaks and swished their swords, they got gored from behind. There will be no kill, Sir. There will be merger and Malaysia by 31st August, however much the Opposition may gang up. Sir, if it is any consolation to the Opposition, and to the Barisan Sosialis in particular, I would like to tell them now that the Government is making intensive preparations to proclaim Malaysia not on 31st August, as originally scheduled, but at the stroke of midnight on 30th August. Sir, if for two years the Communists failed to halt progress towards Malaysia, this last-minute - I think the term is "bundling": I am told it is a bundling bed; everybody gets it - bundling of the Right-wing and the Barisan Sosialis in the same bed will not rock the Malaysia Boat before 31st August. Sir, the issue of merger and Malaysia - one of the miscalculations made by both the Barisan and the Opposition - will not be decided today by mutations and permutations in the Opposition ranks in this Assembly. Ninety-five per cent of the battle for merger and Malaysia was fought not within this Assembly hut outside. That is where the S.P.A., the U.P.P. and the Members for Anson and Joo Chiat miscalculated when they thought they could panic this Government by ganging up against it with cries of "Resign". Merger and Malaysia will come about on 31st August, because the battle for Malaysia has been won outside this Assembly, and it will not come about because of any fear, one way or the other, from this Assembly, but because last September, 72 per cent of the people said that they wanted merger on the basis of the White Paper, not the complete merger as first requested by the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. and then abandoned for merger on terms no less favourable than those granted to the Borneo territories as first requested by the S.P.A. and then abandoned by them, but on the basis of the White Paper. This, Sir, is the simple fact that was overlooked by the Member for Queenstown while he groaned and groaned his way through the sort of incoherent prose that is normally heard only on a psychoanalyst couch. He talks of the people. He always keeps on talking about the people, the people wanting that, the people being opposed to merger and Malaysia, the people having lost faith in the P.A.P.? But which people is he talking about? Is he talking about the S.P.A. Journal which goes by the name "The People"? Is he talking about the Barisan Sosialis people? I agree that the Barisan Sosialis people who for the most part consist of bony-kneed school boys and youths and pig-tailed lassies are against merger and Malaysia. True, these befuddled and hysterical juveniles put up black banners and possibly black underpants to mourn the inevitable advent of merger and Malaysia. These are the people you see them running around in pig tails, short pants; I understand, Sir, that new orders have gone out that they should wear long pants, cut off their pig tails, have permanent wave - probably the bee-hive - so that the people will say that the Barisan has now the support of mature people - the workers. [Interruption] I might be crazy, Sir, but these Gentlemen, as far as I can see, are in a position where they will go crazy slowly. If the Member for Queenstown thinks that the people are the 72 per cent who voted for merger and Malaysia or even the growing numbers in the rural areas who since the Prime Minister's visits of explanations realise that they have been misled by the Barisan Sosialis falsehoods, then I am afraid that the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Queenstown are completely off the mark. The truth is that the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists have become objects of contempt and ridicule among the people today, and the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis know it. That is why the Barisan Sosialis Members opposite have lost their bounce and confidence. It is an open secret that the more far-sighted Members in the Barisan Sosialis are today making preparations to give up politics after 31st August, either to take up higher studies abroad, or run prawn farms -

Are you thinking too?

- and one Member of the Barisan Sosialis told the Minister for Health and Law that she is going to buy and sell second-hand cars. Well, Sir, that is a very good sign. I approve of people taking up higher studies. I wish they had done it sooner, but with 30 days more to 31st August, it is still not too late. I approve of people going into the prawn farm business or even selling second-hand cars or even share-broking, because it means that many of them secretly believe that Malaysia will bring prosperity in which they too would like to have a share. Whether they do so or not will depend on whether between now and 31st August they embark upon newer, more foolish, still madder misadventures like storming the City Hall or possibly staging minor confrontations of their own in Singapore. Obviously, many Barisan Sosialis Members are not particularly impressed or convinced by the Member for Queenstown's affirmation and re-affirmation yesterday and today that the Ban-san Sosialis and the Communists have the people behind them. I watched them very closely yesterday and I got the impression that they did not believe a word of what their leader was saying [Interruption]. Many of them drifted in and out. In fact, Sir, you will have noticed that when the Member for Queenstown's voice rose to an oratorical crescendo about the Barisan Sosialis having the masses behind them in this fight against merger and Malaysia, not once were there any supporting noises from the Barisan Sosialis Back Benches.

Of course, the Minister must realise that unseemingly noises in this Assembly are out of order. They were keeping proper order.

By supporting noises, I meant there was not even an apologetic "Here, here!" They do not believe a word of what their leader had been saying, and for a good reason. The number of events during the last few weeks in Singapore have made it clear to the Barisan Sosialis that their Party is a political dead duck and that they have become objects of open derision and contempt among the people. Yes, Sir, unlike two years ago when the people dared not laugh at the Communists openly because they were mesmerised by the myth of Communist power, today the people are prepared to laugh and boo at the Communists openly and publicly. This happened at Hong Lim on the 14th July when the Prime Minister held a mass meeting immediately after his return from London after signing the Malaysia Agreement. Not far from the park, Sir, the second branch of the Communist-controlled Singapore General Employees' Union displayed black banners to mourn what they called `the selling-out of the people's rights under the Malaysia Agreement'. It is strange, Sir, that thousands and thousands of people should have lined the streets, fired crackers and built arches to cheer and congratulate the Prime Minister for "selling them out." It is very strange that they should have lined the streets, shaken his hands and cheered him for selling them out. But there were thousands of people at Hong Lim Park on that night. During the course of his speech, the Prime Minister drew the attention of the crowd to the black banners put up by professional mourners of the second branch of the Singapore General Employees' Union. The banners were lighted up and the Prime Minister thought that he would do the professional mourners a favour by giving them their banners additional publicity. Since he was on the T.V. and the radio, he wanted to read out the obituary message on the black banners so that hundreds and thousands of radio listeners and T.V. viewers could know what the Communists were mourning for -

A dead duck!

But the rest of Singapore, as far as everyone could see, were joyful that the Malaysia Agreement had been concluded. Sir, since the black banners were some distance away, the Prime Minister had some difficulty reading the words and I expected the S.G.E.U. mourners to turn on more lights on the banners so that the Prime Minister could read what was written there and relay the message. Instead, the lights went off suddenly to the astonishment of the thousands of people assembled at the park and the T.V. cameras picked it up all. Not only did the lights go off and the black banners were hidden in darkness but the crowds were even more astonished to see the youthful mourners of the S.G.E.U. premises scooting for their lives. Here are the people who proclaim that they have the masses behind them, to the right of them, to the left of them, running away like frightened rabbits before the masses. This was seen by The crowds and picked by the television camera and relayed, I hope, throughout the length and breadth of Singapore. All because of what, Sir? Because the Prime Minister, whom the Communists have said is afraid of the masses, had wanted to read out for the benefit of the audience and the radio and T.V. listeners what the Communist black banners said. All he was trying to do was to do them a favour, and they scooted. No wonder before the astonishing spectacle of Communist stooges doing a bunk before the eyes of the people that the crowds at first laughed and then booed. Then they cheered - not the Barisan, Sir. For the first time in a long while, a crowd of ordinary people who have been conditioned to maintain a respectful silence before the Communists and their stooges were able to laugh and see the Communist stooges scooting for their lives. Sir, the battle that began two years ago, the magic spell of Communist strength and invincibility has been irrevocably broken. A figure of fear had, after two years of protracted struggle over merger and Malaysia, become a popular figure of fun, just as today the Member for Queenstown and his cohorts in this Assembly have become. Even his marathon speeches in this Assembly, a hitter and massive compendium of all the speeches he has made in this Assembly during the last few years, despite editorials from the Barisan Sosialis' Orient Express, the impromptu flow of the unconscious, all this too, today, have become a figure of fun. The fact that today an ordinary crowd can openly and publicly dare to laugh at the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist cohorts constitutes a major psychological and political victory for the non-Communist democratic forces. In the eyes of the masses, the Barisan Sosialis is not a Marxist outfit but an outfit of Marx Brothers - Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Siew Choh. Then, Sir, last Saturday, there occurred an event at Jalan Besar which proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the myth of Communist invincibility, Communist prestige, Communist might, had been utterly destroyed. The people have been purged of this dangerous fear of Communist power and influence. Jalan Besar is a Communist stronghold. It is one of their major hunting grounds. There is a lot of unions around there, Sir. The humiliation of the Communists being laughed out of their own premises by a crowd. The biggest humiliation is where a person can be laughed out of his own premises. They were high up, Sir, so that people could not do anything. They were about four or five storeys high. But they were still so scared of the people that they ran out. That was the biggest humiliation, it was bad enough putting out the lights, running out of your own house, hut worse still, running out of a house which was beyond the reach of the masses. Well, Sir, to rectify that humiliation, the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists wanted to retrieve their honour and self-respect at Jalan Besar. We had advanced information that a number of Barisan Sosialis unions were making active preparations to boo and heckle the Prime Minister, to shout anti-Malaysia and anti-merger slogans during his tours of Jalan Besar, Kampong Kapor and Farrer Park constituencies. They wanted to see the Prime Minister run away from the people this time. Some 70 beardless youths and hysterical girls had assembled high above the Communist-controlled National Building Construction Workers Union. They had fixed loud-speakers to boo and hurl abuse at the Prime Minister. Well, Sir, things did not work out the way the Communists had hoped for. Far from running away as the Communists had hoped, the Prime Minister halted his jeep in the midst of thousands of people who had assembled there, while from the Union building above draped with black banners, the Communists shouted how the Prime Minister had sold out the people of Singapore.

Were you there?

Yes, I was there. I am in the photographs. In fact, I had the pleasure of seeing what I consider to be the greatest humiliation the Communist confrontationists had ever had inflicted on them by the people of Singapore. I was very happy that I was there on that day, to see the final humiliation of the Communists by the people, Sir, not by the P.A.P.

Work Brigade.

Well, Sir, I will come to that. The Barisan Sosialis keep on repeating propaganda which only arouses the anger of the people as it did that day at Jalan Besar. Well, Sir, -

It is in the photographs.

Sir, the Communists knowing full well that the Prime Minister was going on a tour to mobilise support for the Malaysia Agreement, were trying to stir up public feeling, work up some kind of demonstration, use the crowd that would be there and turn it into a crowd demonstrating against Malaysia. Sir, the Prime Minister who, according to the Communists, is supposed to be afraid of the masses, was right in the middle of the masses. Not so the beardless youths and screeching girls of the Barisan Sosialis unions. They were in a balcony, high above, the youths with handkerchiefs tied across their faces like bank robbers, and girls hiding their beautiful faces every time -

Sir, on a point of order.

Point of order.

Have all these great details of the P.M.'s tour anything to do with the motion before us?

I take it that the Minister has in mind asking the Assembly to be mindful of the long and arduous battle for merger. I hope the Minister will not make his speech too arduous.

Sir, I was going to say the arduous battle will not be finished until the 31st of August, so I was just elaborating. Sir, I want to produce some evidence because the Member for Queenstown spent one whole evening and the best part of an afternoon saying that people are against Malaysia, and here was a good test. Sir, here were the people - I think something like 6,000 or 7,000 ordinary people - gathered around the Prime Minister. There were on one side the Communists shouting slogans, "Down with Malaysia! Sell-out Malaysia! Sell-out merger," and there was the Prime Minister - who is supposed to be disliked by the people, the people are waiting to hang him from the nearest lamp-post - standing in the midst of the crowd, whereas the "people's representatives", the "men who had the masses behind them" in a fourth-storey building.

Quite easy to jump down.

To be fair, Sir, I must say that though the boys and the girls were covering up their faces, wearing masks, handkerchiefs - one thing struck me, Sir, and I must be fair to the girls. I had a distinct recollection that the girls were somewhat braver than the boys. At least the girls occasionally revealed their faces. It is an odd thing about the Barisan Sosialis, that their womenfolk are not only braver than their menfolk, but they are often delegated to undertake more risky jobs like volunteering for West Irian or storming the City Council. The menfolk sit in the Operations Room and direct operations.

They know how to squeak.

Then, Sir, while they were defying the Prime Minister and shouting anti-Malaysia slogans, the Prime Minister made what I thought was a sporting offer. He asked the hysterical youths and girls to send a representative to come down and talk to the people. He offered them the use of a more efficient microphone to explain to the people why they thought that the Malaysia Agreement was a sell-out. The crowd, too, thought that it was a sporting offer, and by cheers urged the Communists to accept the offer. But to the astonishment of the crowd, the Communists youths, the Barisan Sosialis stooges, showed great reluctance in coming down from their great heights to talk to the people. Instead they preferred to shout abuse from behind masked faces from the top of the building. And I have here, Sir, photographs [Exhibiting]. This is supposed to be the premises of the National Construction Workers Union. This is a very good example of the deception perpetrated by the Communists. We have photographs here of youths who could not by any stretch of the imagination be called construction workers. This is a man, Sir, [indicating] and this shows the bravery of the Barisan Sosialis men. There is a man hiding his face, the girl is exposing her face, but he has got his arm around the girl. By no stretch of the imagination can they be called construction workers. What were they doing in the premises of people who are supposed to be construction workers? Here are further photographs, Sir. [Exhibiting] Men hiding their faces. You will note in every photograph here that the men seemed to be more anxious to hide their faces than the women. Young girls, some of them in their teens, and men, I am quite sure, who have not yet even started to shave. These are "construction workers". What were they doing in the premises of the National Construction Workers Union?

Looking for girls.

This is a deception. When they talk of "the people", when they talk of "the workers", as we have always said, bony knees, short pants, school kids. These are the ones that "mobilise the crowd". When they talk of the people, we know they are telling a complete falsehood. So they refused to come down. The Prime Minister said, "Please come down instead of shouting, and explain to the people. You say that Malaysia is a sell-out." What they did was over the loudspeakers they said what the Member for Choa Chu Kang said, "Work Brigade."

The People's Association.

Yes, the exact words, Sir. And the crowd got very angry. Here are photographs of the crowd. You can see, Sir, [exhibiting] they do not look like the Work Brigade. There are 10,000 or 12,000 throughout the route. And when the crowd heard that, and when the Prime Minister translated for them and said, "They say that you are Work Brigade men," the crowd got angry. They cheered the Prime Minister and booed the Barisan chaps. And we hake a photograph of that. When they heard the booing, they scooted. Sir, along the balcony here [Indicating] they scrammed.

Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Elucidation, yes.

Sir, will the Hon. Minister distribute the photos to Members of the House?

Here, you can have them. [The Minister made as if he wanted to cross the Floor to hand over the photographs.]

I do not propose to have the time of the House taken up that way. I think the photographs can certainly be passed around in good time. If they were tabled -

I will table them, Sir. For the Barisan Sosialis' Orient Express, I am prepared to give them complimentary copies. Dr Goh Keng Swee pointed to Members of the Opposition.

Order. The Minister for Finance must behave himself in this Assembly.

Sir, the "Party of the people, as the Communists claim themselves to be, preferred to throw incoherent abuse at the people from the safety of the building above.

You heard the truth for once at least.

You can watch it on T.V.

This was all photographed by television cameras. One thing is that the pictures taken by the television cameras failed to show what the crowd was saying, the noises of the crowd, the anger of the crowd. When the Prime Minister left, he said, "Here, you can see for yourselves. These are the people who want to destroy Malaysia." Then the crowd gave three cheers, three merdekas, and by that time the gentlemen, little boys and girls, had vanished from the National Union of Construction Workers building. Sir, this is unlike two years ago when they had Lim Ching Siong and a few others to put life into the Party. Today, after two years of struggle with the social democrats, whom they had contemptuously dismissed as effete, purposeless elements, it is the Barisan Sosialis which is in the process of gradual decay. It is my belief that even the Communists, who will survive the Barisan Socialist for a long time, have written the Barisan Sosialis off as a vehicle for their purpose. They will make use of it as a vehicle while it still survives, because it is the only vehicle left for them to manipulate in this Assembly. It is fairly common knowledge that the Barisan Sosialis, under the nominal leadership of the Member for Queenstown and his advisers, have become an embarrassment to the Communist cause. His freelancing, his marathon speeches, ostensibly on behalf of the Communist cause, is no mean contribution towards bringing Communism into disrepute for the masses. A few days ago, there was a letter in the newspapers which described the Member for Queenstown as a political lightweight, what the writer described as a sugar plum to decorate the Barisan cake. I would, I submit, Sir, to be more apt, describe him as the pickled prune in the Barisan trifle. His performance last Thursday when he and his Party lined up with the S.P.A. and the rest of the Opposition to bring down the Government was another miscalculation as damaging to the Communists as the famous tea-party the Barisan Sosialis leaders had in Eden Hall. Sir, to be led up the garden path by British colonialists has at least this consolation. At least the Barisan Sosialis were outwitted by the British colonialists with hundreds of years of experience of State craft and diplomacy behind them. But last Thursday to be led up the garden path by the Right-wing Alliance, which is no electric computer - the S.P.A., we know, were playing their own game, a game on orders from above. For their own reasons, the S.P.A. did not want elections to the Central Parliament first. So they lined up with the Barisan Sosialis who thought that here was a chance to bring about the immediate resignation of the Government and halt merger and Malaysia. However, Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis and their advisers had made some careful calculations on that fateful Thursday afternoon, they would have known that the Member for Cairnhill is not the kind of man who is going to do anything to ensure the survival of the Barisan Sosialis in the next election. By opposing elections to the 15 seats before 31st August, the Barisan Sosialis have deprived the Communists of a possible chance they may have had of winning a few seats even if they are only to be Central Parliament. But thanks to their being led up the garden path, now after 3lst August the chances of the pro-Communists standing for election and winning seats are, I should say, zero. Toe Barisan Sosialis have been once again led up the garden path by - and what must be most humiliating is that they should have been led up the garden path by - the Alliance Party, whose powers of political calculation are by no means outstanding. That is why the Barisan Sosialis, who were jubilant on Thursday evening, looked a bit dazed and desperate on the following day. Some bright chaps must have done some calculations too and put one more black mark against the political ineptitude of the Member for Queenstown and his befuddled advisers. It is now not a case of a pickled prune in the Barisan trifle, but the Barisan trifle being in a serious pickle. Sir, what then is the immediate future for the Barisan Sosialis? How can they in these last remaining 30 days hope to halt Malaysia and merger? I say immediate future because, as I have said, it is only a matter of 30 days before the clock strikes midnight to Malaysia and the Barisan Sosialis find themselves in serious trouble. They know today what happened in Jalan Besar, what the reactions of the people are to their propaganda, to their effort to mount opposition to Malaysia. They know that they will not be able to rally at least 72 per cent of the people in any anti-Malaysia crusade because the people are determined to have Malaysia, as the Barisan Sosialis also know that Malaysia will come whatever happens by 31st August. In fact, I was slightly amused when I read the amendment by the Member for Queenstown because, Sir, if you will read the amendment carefully, you will discover that it is a tacit admission that the White Paper merger terms have the popular backing of the people. The amendment by the Member for Queenstown and much of his argument were calculated to convey the impression that it is the Barisan Sosialis who are now really interested in defending the White Paper merger terms. The Government was castigated for departing from the terms of the White Paper, apart from the general sell-out of merger and Malaysia. Sir, the propaganda objective is clear. Since the Communists cannot halt Malaysia, they hope they can at least capitalise on what they know to be popular support for the White Paper by appearing as defenders of the White Paper, that the P.A.P. which devised the White Paper had betrayed the White Paper, and that the Barisan Sosialis, which opposed the White Paper, can be relied on to defend the terms of the White Paper. I do not think all this will cut any ice with the people who have now learnt to laugh at them publicly. The people have become more sophisticated and they have not the least desire tu place the running of this country and sonic 5400 million worth that the Government has put by the treasury in the hands of youths and masked school girls. The Member for Queenstown and his Party may have public rallies of 20,000 or 30,000 bleating kids. But as the referendum showed, these mammoth rallies of dedicated followers will not prevent 72 per cent of the people or more from using their intelligence and casting their votes for the right type of government. It is true, as I have said, that the Barisan Sosialis know that their number is up. But they have to keep up the pretence that they have the people with them. There is nothing else they can do. However, it is perhaps essential, now that we are reaching the final stages of the battle for merger and Malaysia, to indicate the real danger, or the more dangerous role, the last and final role, that the Barisan Sosialis will play before they are finally eliminated from the political scene. It is necessary for the people of Singapore to become aware of what potential danger can emanate from the Barisan Sosialis. As far as the people and the workers of Singapore are concerned, they will get no support. They can never formalise them and they know it. That is why there was one phrase in the speech by the Member for Queenstown which I thought was significant, because he himself drew attention to it. Because in his verbal ramblings, he let the cat out of the bag when he said that the essence of the Malaysia Agreement - that is his very word, the essence of the Malaysia Agreement - to which he took the strongest objection was Article 6, dealing with defence pacts. It immediately struck me that this was also an Article to which the strongest exception has been taken by certain confrontationists outside of Singapore. Sir, ths more clearly than anything else reveals in whose interests the Barisan Sosialis are working. The same term "essence" - the others are all part of the propaganda - of the Malaysia Agreement to which they take the strongest objection is that part of the agreement which will safeguard the security of the lives of the people of Malaysia. Sir, I can well understand confrontationists outside of this country objecting to Malaysia, maybe they have genuine misunderstandings about Malaysia. That is their business. If they persist in their confrontation, it is our business as loyal Singaporeans, loyal Malaysian people and loyal to the people of this country, to try and explain away the misunderstandings foreign friends might have about Malaysia. But not so the Barisan Sosialis. They are helping to magnify the misunderstandings by creating the impression that there is opposition to merger and Malaysia. If they can give the impression to outside forces that they are in real opposition to Malaysia, then it is an open invitation to intervention by forces outside who may misunderstand the situation. They might say, "It is worth our while intervening." That is a dangerous role that the Barisan Sosialis is playing. As far as the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, they are not interested in defending the interests of the people of Singapore. That is why they were held in contempt by the vast masses of the people. That is why they were jeered and booed and laughed out at Hong Lim and Jalan Besar, because the people of Singapore are not that foolish. They are beginning to see that the Barisan Sosialis in the last hours of their lives are playing the most despicable of all roles that any political Party can play in any country - betraying their people, betraying their country. It is no accident that when the Barisan Sosialis first began their opposition to merger and Malaysia, Mr Lim Ching Siong, amongst many other things, said that he preferred merger with Indonesia to merger with the Federation. It is no accident that the Barisan Sosialis should have tried to give supporting action in Singapore to further the foreign inspired revolt in Brunei. It is no accident that the Member for Queenstown should pick out Article 6 of the Malaysia Agreement as the essential part of the Agreement to which he is most opposed. As I say after two years of bitter struggle, we do not mind losing out even to the S.P.A. Whatever it is, the S.P.A. is a Malaysian Party, loyal to Malaysia, whatever disagreement we have with them. But when a political Party is prepared to sell out their own people merely to save their own political skin, then I say that when the time comes the people will deal with them not as a Malaysian political Party hut as Quislings, traitors, who in other countries, because of the role they are playing, will merit their being - there are legal remedies - executed. Their's is a traitorous role - a sell-out. We do not mind being sold out to the Right-wing. We do not mind being sold out even to the Tunku, Sir.

You are selling out to the British yourself.

I do not mind being sold out to the British because the British at least are not part of our life. But these are people who suddenly are going any time, especially if the Barisan Sosialis encourage and misguide them, who might misunderstand the situation, and then a flare occurs. They have denounced the British; they have denounced the Tunku as a feudalist, but they have never denounced the confrontationists. Why? Why? They have denounced everybody except the confrontationists. An hon. Member: Traitors!

They never denounce the confrontationists. Supposing there is confrontation tomorrow. People get shot up. What will the Barisan Sosialis do? [Interruption]

Order.

Would they be sending out volunteers? Sir, they are therefore being laughed out. The history of the Barisan Sosialis in two years - 20th July, 1961, started out with treachery. Their beginning to be a political Party - treachery - ending up with preparing for a sell-out, for a traitorous role. I can think of no more inglorious end to an inglorious Party. That we should have succeeded after two years, we whom they have called feeble, pro-colonialist stooges, though we are a Party - we have not got all the experience of the M.C.P. of 30 years - but that we should have eventually succeeded in getting them to admit that the only hope of their survival does not lie in getting support from their own people but selling out their own people to outside forces. That has made our struggle worthwhile, the struggle of the social democrats against the Communists, worth every minute, every hour. Sir, as I have said earlier, this Government is now preparing to inaugurate Malaysia Day not on 31st August, but on 30th August. We shall send them an invitation because up to midnight of 30th August, we guarantee nothing will happen. And we hope they will be there up to 12 o'clock, because after 12 o'clock we can guarantee nothing. Any time on 30th August, after 12 o'clock they can come and see the people of Singapore rejoice and cheer over the advent of Malaysia, which is always certain, as sure as the sun rises, as sure as the red star of the Barisan Sosialis will set.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have shown a contempt for the wishes of the people of Singapore which surpasses all understanding. They still wish it to be believed that what is not good for them must also be not good for the people of Singapore. Sir, when the break came in the middle of 1961, they were fighting with their hacks to the wall, not to defend the rights of the people of Singapore, as they profess to do, but to get themselves out of the noose which they knew had been slipped over their necks and had begun to tighten when the Tunku made a public declaration that he was prepared to agree to a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. Sir, from then on there was no trickery and no subterfuge they would not have resorted to to try to save themselves from their approaching misfortunes and their impending doom. Sir, they who shouted the slogans of democracy from the roof-tops were seen to go, cap in hand, to the personification of British imperialism in this part of the world to implore that they be given a chance to assume power in Singapore by an act of perfidy and treachery to their erstwhile colleagues and friends, conceding the British military bases in Singapore to the British Raj and accepting a perpetuation of colonialism in Singapore so long as internal security was in their hands. Sir, in view of all this, how hollow did the Member for Queenstown sound yesterday when he charged that Article 6 of the Malaysia Agreement, which extended the agreement on external defence and mutual assistance to all territories of Malaysia, exposed the real intention of the Malaysia Agreement to be a neo-colonialist British plot to perpetuate their rule in these parts. Sir, the Barisan, who have been exposed in their own plots when they are caught out, tried to discover plots elsewhere and seek to condemn with all the treachery that they can command a defence agreement which, in essence, does nothing more than what they themselves have been prepared to acquiesce in before. Sir, is it surprising that they should be guilty of such a volte face, as this is exactly what the P.K.I., their associates in Indonesia, do not want? When the concept of merger began to take shape and when they have been exposed in their neo-colonialist anti-national scheme, they started a hue and cry about second-class citizenship and shouted for complete merger with proportional representation in the Central Legislature. Again they were thinking about their own political survival and not of the interest of the people of Singapore. They were quite prepared to hand over education and labour and all the finances of the State of Singapore to the control of the Central Government without any constitutional safeguards for the future. The White Paper proposals were put to the people of Singapore in the referendum held last year, and because their sell-out plan was not put to the electorate, as it would have been fraudulent on the part of the Government to do so, they campaigned for blank votes in a big way. Having suffered a resounding defeat at the polls, they turned round and said that the people were frightened by the loss of citizenship into voting for the White Paper proposals and that the referendum was a phoney referendum. Through their trickery and lies, they were able to get 25 per cent of the electorate, mostly in the rural areas where their influence was greatest and where the Government's means of dissemination of information had difficulty in penetrating, to cast blank votes. If, in fact, the people were frightened by the loss of citizenship into voting for Alternative A in a big way, how is it that those who cast blank votes were not actuated by the same sort of fear? This is what the Barisan have great difficulty in trying to explain away. 10.59 p.m.

Sir, the contradictions in their own position are clearly apparent to them. But for those whose fortunes are now hanging on a thread, what do such contradictions matter so long as they can, by trickery and deception, put up a facade that the Malaysia Agreement is a sell-out of the fundamental rights of the people of Singapore, so that they can make one last attempt to confuse the people by their hypocrisy and their evil cunning? They who have asked the people of Singapore to reject the White Paper proposals in toto and cast blank votes now seek in an amendment to claim that the Government has cheated the people of Singapore by going back on just one of the clauses of the White Paper proposals. It does not matter to them at all that this House gave the Government a mandate on 10th June, 1963, to reach an early settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of the White Paper proposals. It was in pursuance of this mandate that the Agreement was entered into in London recently. Have they attempted to show that the Agreement was not fair and just to both sides on the basis of the White Paper proposals? They now say that the loss of our free port status was not included in the White Paper proposals and, therefore, there has been a sell-out. They were prepared to hand over Singapore, lock, stock and barrel, to the Central Government; yet they now complain of the loss of the free port status. It is not dissimilar to their protest against Article 6 of the Malaysia Agreement, extending the Malaysia Agreement to all the Malayan territories, and just as hollow. The negotiations in London were difficult enough, each side trying to get the best of the bargain. If agreement was to be reached, concessions had to be made on both sides. It is only those who seek to mask their real intentions who will be bold enough to claim that the net result of the agreement reached in London is that Singapore has been handed over to the Central Government as a dependency of the Federation, substituting British imperialism for Federation imperialism. Sir, fair and just apportionment of the revenue to pay for the Central Government responsibility for services in Singapore, hitherto the responsibility of the Singapore Government, and to meet the new Defence and External Affairs commitments following from the establishment of Malaysia, had to be accepted and had to be worked out in dollars and cents. Sir, surely a free of interest loan of $100 million for five years, and for a further five years if Singapore's prosperity warrants it, and a $50 million loan at normal interest rates are more advantageous to Singapore than an outright gift of $50 million which was first demanded by the Federation Government. In an outright gift of $50 million, the interest due which amounts to a very large sum of money every year on the capital grant is lost for all time. Sir, if Singapore is to survive as a viable economic entity after merger, a common market is essential and it was the duty of the Singapore side to ensure that this was enshrined in the Constitution. This was done. The Rueff Report has drawn attention to the fact that the eventual loss of the free port status must be accepted in the context of the new constitutional arrangements, and the quid pro quo for this eventuality in the common market has been assured to the people of Singapore in safeguards to be written into the Constitution. Has the Government sold out the rights of the people by doing what a prudent Government would do in the interests of the people? Sir, there was a lot of loose talk from the Member for Queenstown on clauses of the constitution which he obviously does not understand and which find an honourable place in all federal constitutional arrangements. One such proposal is the power given to all Central Governments to suspend the State Constitution under conditions of emergency arising from political disturbances in a member State. There is no reason why such a desirable clause should be left out of the Malaysia Constitution. Sir, time is fast running out for the Barisan Sosialis, and men in a desperate position are known to try to do desperate things. They have tried in this last sitting of this Assembly to confuse the people. But the people know them only too well by now. Even the most gullible, except those who are committed with them and who can never be convinced, will not be taken in by their last blatant attempt at palpable fraud. They have complained that the Government has denied them the right of freedom of association and freedom of speech to go out to campaign once more against merger and Malaysia before the 31st August, even though they know that the people have already in overwhelming majority in a free vote accepted merger and Malaysia. The word "freedom" in its democratic context does not mean a licence to create trouble for the purpose of frustrating the wishes of the people, and it is not the denial of fundamental democratic rights for the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the wishes of the people will be respected and Malaysia comes into being on the 31st of August in a peaceful and orderly manner. Sir, now that the combined Opposition has decided that there shall be general elections before elections for the 15 seats to the Central Parliament, there will be general elections before the year is out, but not for the purpose of fresh constitutional talks. On and after 31st August, 1963, merger will be a reality in law and in fact, as all sovereign rights hitherto vested in the British Government over Singapore will have passed from the British Government to the new Central Government of Malaysia. The inexorable logic of events has taken its full course and a chapter in our history is soon to be closed. They would be foolish indeed to believe that they have it in their power to turn the hands of the clock back. To those of my former political friends in the Barisan Sosialis who are now wavering, I say: accept the inexorable logic of events and the wishes of the people and join the ranks of those who are working for the establishment of a peaceful, democratic, socialist, and non-Communist Malaysia. For those who are too deeply committed and cannot see the error of their ways, they must be prepared to take the consequences of their own folly. Sir, I shall now deal with the points of difficulty which have troubled the Member for Farrer Park. Clause 69 of the Malaysia Bill deals with amendments to the Federal Constitution, and the only Legislature which can be concerned with such amendments is the Federal Parliament. As the Leader of the House has already pointed out, this Article is parallel in terms with clause 66(2) of the Malaysia Bill which deals with the same position as regards the Borneo States. Clause 69 and clause 66 (2) of the Malaysia Bill are not at all in conflict with Article 90 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, which deals only with amendments to the Singapore Constitution. The broad effect of clause 69 of the Malaysia Bill is that even where the Federal Parliament has enacted a law amending the Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia with the requisite majority, it will still require the consent of the Government of Singapore if the amendment affects the position of Singapore in regard to the matters set out in clause 69. But as far as the Singapore Legislative Assembly is concerned, it can only amend the Singapore Constitution provided that the amendment is supported by the required majority. In the case of the Members of the House who belong to political Parties and who switch their affiliation from the Party for which they stood for election, the accepted constitutional position in the British parliamentary system is that they are not legally bound to vacate their seats. But in other countries which also subscribe to the democratic system of parliamentary government, where there is provision for proportional representation as in France, the concept is that it is the Party which is represented and not the individual candidate. In that system where a Member switches his Party affiliation, he is replaced by another Member of the same Party. Sir, in law and in fact, there are no rigid forms of parliamentary practice and there is no reason why we should not draw on our own experiences to improvise a new form of parliamentary practice to meet our own local situation. We have therefore introduced a provision which combines the British emphasis on the individual candidate and the French concept of Party representation. If Article 30 (2) (b) of the Singapore Constitution is accepted, then the resulting vacancy must be filled in accordance with the provisions of Article 33. As I understand it, the Member for Farrer Park does not object to Article 33 but only to the omission of the provision that the vacancy should be filled within three months. However, the present Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council does not prescribe any period within which the vacancy must be filled, and for that reason the Singapore delegation did not agree to the imposition of any time limit in the new Constitution. There are, therefore, no real points of difficulty in the amendments introduced by the Member for Farrer Park. I would, therefore, invite him to reconsider the position. 11.12 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this subject has been accepted by all - by the Government, by the Opposition, and even by the public - as one of a grave national character. Therefore, the Prime Minister was accorded due silence and respect when he moved a very intricate motion and spoke for nearly three hours. In that speech of his, he said - let me just quote from my shorthand notes which I have - "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.". He said that in his speech. That was yesterday. We waited. The financial arrangements and the common market terms are matters of grave importance, matters which have not been discussed in the Assembly, and matters on which the Government has received no mandate. We waited, we waited, and we waited. My colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, in his speech touched on the constitutional points. He did say to the Government that we were waiting to hear the views of the Minister for Finance; in fact, his guidance as to how the arrangements reached between the two Governments are - using the words of the motion - fair and just. We waited. After the Member for Farrer Park had spoken and invited the Government to carry out the advice of the Prime Minister, to which advice we listened with great interest and great respect, we waited for the Minister for Finance to inform this House what are the benefits that will accrue to Singapore which are fair and just to Malaysia out of the terms that had been reached in London over the financial arrangements and the Common Market. We are the more interested because those were the two points that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance had been play acting all along before they even went to London, and had been play acting in London too. Therefore, if we were to say that we were anxious to know, to understand and to support with understanding the arrangements reached, could we be accused if I were to say that I had been let down by the Government whose Minister for Finance only sat here and interjected and misbehaved himself, instead of giving the Opposition the guidance that we needed so much for the interest of the people of Singapore? The Leader of the House - the Deputy Prime Minister - when he jumped up to reply to the points on constitutional law brought up by my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, said also that the Minister for Finance would speak on the financial arrangements and the Common Market. That was before the dinner break. After that we had two more Ministers coming in - the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Law. The Minister for Culture spoke for nearly two hours.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

All right.

I think it should be fair to quote the Leader of the House properly. He said that the Minister for Finance would answer the points raised by the Members of the Opposition.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if my ability in writing shorthand has not gone down as a result of P.A.P. manoeuvring and doing things which makes it difficult for even Opposition Members to understand, I have it here as saying that the Minister for Finance will tell us what those arrangements are. Surely, how can the Opposition criticise or support the financial arrangements reached in London if the Minister for Finance himself did not give the guidance that is necessary? The Minister for Finance is not the Minister for the P.A.P. but the Minister for the whole of Singapore, and our Minister for Finance too, and therefore he has a responsibility to guide us and to let us understand the things that he thinks are right, and we are anxious, with understanding, to support him. But no, the Minister for Culture, who just now stood up on a point of elucidation, took nearly two hours - what is that? politics! Ding-dong between P.A.P. and the Barisan - all on what? - to what effect? - to make Singapore realise the more that there has been this rivalry that started since the break-up in July 1961. We waited. Nothing from the Minister for Finance -

Coming, coming! Next instalment tomorrow!

As I have said, Sir, the Minister for Finance is first class, to sit here and interject and misbehave. If he had really taken the advice of the Prime Minister who in his long speech said that he would like to leave that work to his Minister for Finance, he should and he could have immediately followed the Prime Minister and explained the financial details. Oh no, he did not; and now he says he would, he would. But surely he will know that after he has spoken I cannot speak again - I am prevented by Standing Order from speaking on the points raised by him. I cannot speak again and I would hesitate to speak on any points that the Government itself has not made clear to the Opposition. Sir, the Minister for Culture in a two-hour speech - not quite two hours, but nearly - had a ding-dong battle with photographs and had a good laugh at the expense of the Barisan. But there was something in that speech of his which is repetitious, a sort of a record of His Master's Voice. Just because his master said, "Oh, the S.P.A. is linked up with the Barisan to vote against the Federal Elections Bill" therefore the S.P.A. and the Barisan are doing this, that and the others, although after a responsible Member of the Opposition, the Member for Farrer Park, had stood up and explained the reason for the opposition of the Alliance to the Federal Elections Bill, and gave two points. One point was that the Second Reading of that Bill could and should be taken after the Malaysia debate. The second point, which is very important and which has not been explained away by the Government, is that according to the Bill, the dice is loaded in favour of the P.A.P. and that if the Government would only make an honest attempt to show that they too desired elections conducted in an honest way so that there could be fair play for all, we could have understood it. In fact, the Member for Farrer Park has said that the ball is now at their feet. No, they would prefer, if possible, to rig the elections as much as possible. When their evil intentions were found out, what did they do? They said they had been receiving Communist tutelage on propaganda; first-class propaganda to confound the public. "Oh, the Alliance is afraid of elections, and therefore they voted against the Bill." [Interruption] I thank the Minister for Finance for saying that that is quite right. He admitted that he received very good Communist tutelage on the art of distortion. Quite right. He learns that. So, therefore, they went out talking, "The Alliance is afraid of general elections, and therefore, they voted against the Federal Elections Bill." They repeatedly said that. The Minister for Culture repeated it even after having heard what the Member for Farrer Park had said to the Government, that the ball is now at their feet. Sir, I would not like to waste the time of this House by repeating what the Member for Farrer Park has said, but in replying I would like to touch on certain points raised by the Leader of the House and by the Minister for Law. They are in regard to three legal points raised by the Member for Farrer Park. I would like to reply to them in due course, but in the meantime, let us tackle the speeches of the Ministers, in the order of the last Minister first. Apart from the legal point, which I would bring up at a later stage, what I am going to speak no now is more on the points of a political character than of a constitutional character. He says, "The combined Opposition has dissented, so there shall be general elections before the year is out," and this coming from the Minister for Law. He knows that the 1962 Electoral Registers are null and void, because -

Because of what?

- because of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill tabled last Wednesday. That Bill had a Second Reading on Wednesday. I will just talk very briefly on this. The Minister for Home Affairs, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, unfortunately set the wrong tone, and got the tails of the Opposition up. What did he say? "Oh, we the Government say there is no need for this amending Bill. The Government believes and still maintains that the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, introduced in June and forced through against the whole united Opposition objection, was right and legal." In June, it was pointed out by the Member for Farrer Park and by me, that that amending legislation could only legalise the late certification of the Electoral Registers. It could not legalise the acts done by the Registration Officer in conducting the registration, when such acts were done after the end of 1962, that is, in February 1963. Therefore, it was urged upon the Government that they should consider carefully putting in a provision to make it beyond all doubt that the acts of the Registration Officer, carried out in February 1963, which were in contravention of section 50 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, should be protected. I urged upon the Minister then that he should give serious consideration to this point of law. The Member for Farrer Park appealed to the Minister for Law and sought his wisdom. The Minister for Law chose to be silent. The Minister for Home Affairs just went ahead and said, "This Bill was prepared and vetted by the State Advocate-General's Department, and surely it must have been all right." They pushed it through against the whole Opposition vote, immediately after that, they tabled an amending Bill at the following sitting, i.e. July, on a Certificate of Urgency. What did the Minister say then? I would not like to waste time going through the Official Report, but in effect this is what he said, "Oh, you know, I tabled this amending Bill, not because the Government thinks that the Opposition is right - the Government still maintains that it is right - but in order to accommodate the Opposition, so this amending Bill is introduced." Surely, Sir, that is not the way to run a government. That is not the way to introduce legislation. What was the reaction from the Opposition? Up we jumped. We said that what we advised the Government to do, the Government should have done. If the Government had been a democratic Government, upholding the practice of parliamentary democracy, it would have given due weight to any Opposition objection together with legal reasoning, and then it could have deferred the Committee Stage for just one hour.

Order. May I remind the Member for Cairnhill that we debated this particular aspect last Wednesday? I think he has made his point, if he is going into detail, then he is inviting a debate from the Government side.

Mr Deputy Speaker, sometimes I find is difficult to make the Government understand, and I am just explaining in greater detail the statement of the Minister for Law that there could be elections before the end of the year. I tried to tell him straight to his face that there could be no elections, and in order to prove my contention that there can be no elections because the Electoral Registers are null and void, I will have to seek your indulgence -

That is what you say.

- to go and explain the course of events. The' Minister for Law keeps on maintaining that that Bill passed in June and which has become law already - the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance - is good. Yet the Minister for Law, who is a Member of the Cabinet, did not advise the Minister for Home Affairs that that other amending Bill need not have been introduced at all. The Minister for Home Affairs introduced it, however. Things are now getting difficult for the P.A.P. Ministers. It would appear that one Minister does not know what the other Minister is doing. It would also appear that what the Prime Minister does is not even known to the Ministers, so much so that the three Ministers who stood up - the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Culture, and tile Minister for Law - did not talk about the documents. No. They talked about the hard and long struggle with the Barisan Sosialis, the Communists, the Right. Left, and Centre. "Everybody is Communist" - that is what they talk about. They did not talk of the documents, and I must say this, Sir, they themselves do not know what is in the documents, because they themselves did not have the time to study what is in them. Therefore, they could not. But in order to put up an appearance of' solidarity, they stood up and said, "The other Ministers are not here, so let me speak." The Minister for Culture spoke' something on the Barisan Sosialis which could be taken to be just a repetition of the Prime Minister's speech - repeat His Master's Voice - the picture of a wonderful dog sitting patiently, obediently, listening to his master's voice. [Laughter]

Order.

I want to tell the Minister for Law - I hope the Government will consult the State Advocate-General that the 1962 Electoral Registers are illegal. Having maintained that stand, and as the Government has been knocked out and has agreed to resign after Malaysia, may I ask the Ministers who share collective responsibility of the Minister for Home Affairs to see to it that the 1963 Electoral Registers are ready in time according to law, i.e. 15th September? The Minister for Home Affairs has said that steps have already been taken to revise the Registers for March 1963 - four months ago. The Minister for Home Affairs has even said that the Minister for Finance has now agreed that the Statistics Department could have - I do not know what they call it -an electronic machine or something -

Computing machine.

Thank you for the assistance; a computing machine, whereby they can compute how best the PAP, can win against the tide.

How to wind up.

- how best the P.A.P. can win against the tide. Sir, I do urge upon the Government, if there is sincerity, if there is honesty in their declaration that they will have general elections before the year is out, let us have the 1963 Electoral Registers ready by the 15th of September. The Elections Office is under the control of the Executive Government. The Executive Government has already interfered with the working of the Elections Office under the law. I do hope that now that Malaysia is on (30 days more) - the Ministers call upon the Barisan Sosialis to repent, it is not too late - I say to the Ministers and the Back Benches of the P.A.P., "Repent and come clean, it is still not too late."

You had better go and have a bath.

The Minister asks me to have a bath, Sir. May I point out to the Minister that it is because of a wicked P.A.P. Government that there is water rationing and I cannot even have a decent bath? It is not only I but the members of the public - [Interruption]

Order.

After 8 o'clock you can have a bath.

The Minister keeps us here. We are being kept here right tip to midnight. It does not matter. Evil is he who evil thinks - [Interruption] Ah, you see all this? The Back Benches are good sycophants of the Prime Minister. Come on, let us play the same record. Ha, ha, keep on -

Order. May I remind the Member for Cairnhill that if he faces the Chair it will be more convenient to him?

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is when you have to speak in front of Members who cannot even be cultured in spite of the Ministry of Culture that one loses one's sense of balance. [interruption] But since they have said it, I will look at you, Sir. The Minister for Law is trying to tell us that we can have elections on electoral registers that are illegal. That is his law. A man who is supposed to look after the law, stands up and tries to talk about finance, whereas the Minister for Finance has not even opened his mouth on finance. He tries to tell us that the arrangements are better. I do not know. I will not accept his advice, but I am prepared to accept the advice of the Minister for Finance. So, may I say to the Minister for Law, forget finance.

Why do you listen to me?

Forget finance. Sir, the Minister for Law, the Minister for Culture, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, all in their speeches keep on calling S.P.A., whereas we have explained to them that we are now a United Alliance. But why do they say S.P.A., Sir? it is very clear. Because the Prime Minister said even if the S.P.A. were to vote against him - not the U.M.N.O. And why not the U.M.N.O.? Because the Prime Minister went to see Tunku and said, "Tunku, U.M.N.O. sama P.A.P. boleh lah jadi satu perikatan."

Order. I think all these gestures of the Member for Cairnhill should be cut short and he should come to the subject once more.

There again, Sir, it is the lateness of the hour. We are now nearing the bewitching hour, midnight - midnight, 30 days after, Malaysia, and according to the Minister for Culture, oh, he says it is wonderful. On the stroke of midnight 30 days after, he says this will positively be their last appearance. Is that not a threat? This will positively be their last appearance.

So will it be yours.

Sir, is it a fact or are they trying to say that in the Central Government, the new Minister for Internal Security will lock all of them up? Is that the way for the Government to behave and put ideas into the heads of the public and their political opponents that in the Central Government, the Minister for Internal Affairs is a vicious ogre waiting only to pounce on these poor defenceless Barisan Sosialis who, by the grace of the charity of the P.A.P. Ministers, still remain here? Are they trying to do that? Is it good culture? Is it the way to make friends? Yes, culture, or is he not taught? They know that Article 30, sub-clause 2 (b), is under attack. They could have these people removed just by having this proposed Constitution enacted as law. That is, because they have crossed the Floor under Article 30 (2) (b), they are no longer Members of the Assembly. I do not know. It is very hard to assess the evil minds of the P.A.P., which way they are shooting? Is it Article 30 (2) (b) or is it because they feel that the Minister for Internal Security for Malaysia will make short shrift of these people? I do not know. Whichever way it is, they seem to know. But no matter whichever way that happens, we in the Alliance know that the P.A.P. is dead, not by an act - an attempt to cheat at legalising the deed, not act. They are trying to frighten the Opposition that the Central Government will take action against these people under the P.P.S.O. They are dead because it has been found out that they will stoop so low as to put into important Constitutional documents things that were not there in the London one and without even explaining them to us. The Prime Minister could have explained that Article 30 (2) (b) is a new one, and could have said, "Watch out, the implications mean this and we ask you to support us on this because you know the Barisan boys left us. We want them out, the dirty traitors. Look, the other Members of the Workers' Party - the Member for Anson is no longer in the Workers' Party. Let us vote him out." But what is more important is that there are some Members on the Government side who are so disgusted - "disgusted" is the word - with the manner in which the Prime Minister has handled the Government. I am sure that not one Member - even some Ministers - in the second line, third line - I do not call them teams because they cannot even kick any ball now - knows anything about these Constitutional Documents. Why I say they know nothing is that before, when we had these friendly exchanges, up jumped a Back bencher and then he sat down; another Back bencher jumped up followed by another - and they kept on shooting; but now there is silence. They think, in this particular instance, that silence is golden. If they speak too much, they might embarrass the Prime Minister because they know not what they speak about. Therefore, they prefer to keep silent. Sir, the Prime Minister, in his speech last Monday, when I talked about the Port workers, talked about other things. And what did he say? He said that he did not even have time to read the documents. I can quote the right words, but it does not matter. He did say that he did not have the time to read the Constitutional Documents. He said that I did not have the time to read the Constitutional Documents on Wednesday and on Thursday and that if I had read them, my stand on the Federal Elections Bill might have been different. He himself knew that by his own act he had prevented the Opposition from knowing what the papers were until Sunday afternoon. And yet be charged that I on Wednesday and Thursday did not have the time to read the Documents and that I was busy making money. How could I have read anything when all these Documents were still kept by him secret until Sunday afternoon? Sir, this is typical of P.A.P. propaganda! He said, "There is this Member for Cairnhill, busy making money, and he does not even have the time to read the Documents," when, in actual fact, he was even afraid to let us have the Documents in time. This is the kind of P.A.P. culture, P.A.P. crookedness, and P.A.P. attempt to try to "fix the Opposition." Yes, Sir, "to fix the Opposition." The Prime Minister has said, "I can fix you, but you cannot fix me." Never mind, although we cannot fix him, we will see him buried at the general elections and I do not think I will even send him a wreath. Sir, this is interesting. He said that I was in Kuala Lumpur sitting and waiting. He said that he saw the Member for Cairnhill waiting patiently outside the Cabinet, and that it afforded them some amusement.

Great amusement.

That day, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance went up. I went up too. The night before, I knew what the trouble was. The trouble was this $50 million grant. The P.A.P. said, "No loan. The common market in terms have to be spelt out. We are going to be firm." I must say that I had talks with the P.A.P. because I was just as anxious as they were. You must not forget, Sir, on 10th June it was my motion demanding fair and just terms. It was my motion, not the Government's motion, demanding fair and just terms for a merger agreement. So I went up, Because I am a friend and still am proud to be a friend of the Ministers of the Federation, I went to the Minister for Finance and said, "This is very difficult, you know. I think you had better change your stand. Do not spoil the chances of Malaysia. Accept the loan and think of something else. Let it be written into the Constitution." I was for it in an honest attempt to meet the P.A.P. At the time they were having that meeting, I was anxious, because I knew the temper of the Ministers in the Federation. Their temper was not that they wanted to extract as much as they could out of Singapore but because the Prime Minister was playing party politics the whole time. The Minister for Finance an ogre - whereas in the Federation Cabinet, I can say this, Sir. There is real collective responsibility. There every Minister knows what the other Ministers are doing. There every decision is taken by the Cabinet. But it is not so here with the P.A.P. Everything is the Prime Minister. He went to negotiate. "Minister for Finance? Ah, get out! When he comes, get out." And he kept on talking about finance - An hon. Member: Who?

The Prime Minister talking about finance, and yet he accused the Federation Minister of' Finance as being the big bad wolf. Whereas whatever points presented by the Minister for Finance in the Federation were the points decided upon by the Federation Government. It serves the P.A.P. to twist and to distort - M.C.A., M.C.A. Why? Because they really feel afraid that the Chinese in Singapore are going to throw the P.A.P. down the drain. So they say, "The M.C.A. jahat, very, very evil men." Here it is the same thing. They are trying to twist the U.M.N.O. and the M.C.A. They are calling the S.P.A. very evil men and U.M.N.O. baik punya orang-lah, banyak baik. What are they trying to do? So I was anxious. I was more anxious than the Prime Minister. Why, Sir? Because I say the interests of the people of Singapore should come first and not party politics. I was anxious. I thought the meeting would be over in an hour. Unfortunately, Brunei was included and they met right up to ten past one. I met a very charming civil servant who said, "Tun, come into the room and sit down. It is air-conditioned." I said, "What for the air-conditioned room? I prefer to sit outside." Because when you sit outside - An hon. Member: It is cooler.

You mix up with the syces and you talk and get some ideas, about life, about all the things -

Bicycles.

Sir, to the Minister for Couture it would seem that the bicycle is a low-down thing because he rides in motor-cars. So a bicycle is a Low-down thing. But I say the bicycle is an honourable means of conveyance of the ordinary worker -

Why mix up with bicycles?

Why mix up with bicycles? I do not know why the Prime Minister goes and mixes up with all sorts of people in his constituency tours. What the P.A.P. do is all right, what the Opposition do is -

All wrong.

- all wrong. [Laughter] That is the Minister for Education. If this is the kind of education that the children of Singapore are receiving, I will say "Alama, ampun tuan!" - [Laughter]

Order.

So they sit there and ridicule. But I say I prefer to sit outside, talk with the ordinary man, the syces, the clerks, - An hon. Member: The towkays.

- the tambies. So they say, "What is this'? What is he doing?" I was more anxious. I would not call and embarrass any Minister of the P.A.P. Government, especially the Prime Minister who is very dictatorial and very vindictive. I would not like to name any Minister. Yet at lunch time I was there, so was the Minister for Finance. The Prime Minister could not go and I felt sorry for him, because Mrs Lee Kuan Yew had to go to London for an operation. So the Prime Minister was at the airport. But what I want to point out is this. At that lunch: I did shake my head and say, "Oh, why come to such a decision." The decision was taken. Yet it would seem that the interests of the people of Singapore were only entrusted to the P.A.P. and the P.A.P. only. Nobody else. Anybody else who wants to do it, and because we are on this side of the House: we happen to sit in front of the Barisan; very soon Lim Yew Hock may become a Communist too. I do not know. Could be. By their way of reasoning, it could be. Let us talk of the referendum. Of course, the referendum was again attacked by the Opposition. Not me. The Barisan, the good ex-comrades of the P.A.P. But what did the Prime Minister in his speech say? The Prime Minister, a very responsible man! He admitted this unashamedly in his speech. "You know, we worked in such a way that we rigged the counting of the votes. 51 tables for 51 divisions. Nobody knew where they were." But we knew. The Barisan Sosialis are clever boys. They put in suns of paper to show that this is from Anson; or that man is living in Cairnhill Road, so it must be Cairnhill; or that woman is living in Toa Payoh, so that is Toa Payoh. There was a game going on between the Barisan and the P.A.P. They say we are little innocents. We are innocent? We are clean. We do not stoop to such dirty practice. We knew what was going on. Did the Member for Farrer Park not say in very sober language that we gave the P.A.P. our support on Malaysia? We gave the P.A.P. our support for Paper Cmd. 33. We gave the Prime Minister all the elbow room he wanted, the whole stage to play with and to perform on. This is not cheating, Sir. This does mean to say that the referendum is rigged. No. It s the way the P.A.P. wanted to find out for their own P.A.P. selfish ends. "Here in Hong Lim, how many blank votes. The Member for Hong Lim cannot know. But I know." The P.A.P. Prime Minister knows. "Ah, it is nothing. Only 18 per cent. Forget the Member for Hong Lim. Tanjong Pagar? Ah, it does not matter. 12 per cent and still nothing. We could still win. The rural areas? Jurong? Oh my God, Jurong is 49 per cent." So they knew there was 49 per cent in Jurong. Tidak Apah. They know how to work. So you see that they are playing the party game the whole time - party politics - instead of getting to work for the interest of the people of Singapore. The Barisan was trying to shoot down the P.A.P. and the P.A.P. wanted to choke the Barisan. "Got them by the throat" - I think that was the expression used. That is not the way. We do not mind letting the P.A.P. know in a crooked way how the voting went. We do not worry about that because as sure as there is retribution, that retribution will come to the P.A.P. on polling day - the general elections. An hon. Member: When?

It is left to the Government. Maybe they have to consult the stars whether it is to be 31st December or 2nd March. I do not know. But they might have to consult the stars now. They are becoming a bit superstitious. They might have to consult the stars. An hon. Member: Consult a psychoanalyst. [Interruption]

Order.

Sir, "gangsters" is the Prime Minister's pet subject. "You know, we have now got the Federation Government to delegate to us powers to control gangsters. You watch out." But, Sir, we do not play that kind of game. All I would like to say, and I would ask the P.A.P. to laugh it off, was that Tan Gak Eng - the Assistant Organising Secretary, assistant to the Minister for Home Affairs, who was organising the P.A.P. - was nabbed by the P.A.P. Gangster! Five expelled Committee members of the Jurong Branch of the P.A.P. were nabbed. Gangsters! So what. They nabbed them. An hon. Member: Who says they are gangsters?

So who used the gangsters -

Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh.

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