SINGAPORE CITIZENSHIP BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.02 a.m.

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's consent to move, and I do now formally move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

It is a short Bill compared with the Local Government marathon but it is our basic charter of citizenship. With the general purpose of this Bill, Sir, there will be no disagreement for it must be a matter of pride to us all that our progress towards nation-building has reached the stage when we can discuss this Bill. Nations are not created from the top and then citizens fitted into the nation. The nation is a group of individual citizens whose drive and loyalty create the feeling of nationality, the feeling of being a distinct and distinctive group. It is in the heart and from the heart of each individual citizen that grows the vital and fertile seed of a nation.

Although the problems of the constitution focussed on our discussions in London have roused interest and discussion, the constitution can be no stronger than the dynamic of the devotion it harnesses and guides; or to put it in another way: the first step in establishing self-government is to define the "self" which will govern, and the "self" is the sum of our citizens. This is not done in any spirit of exclusiveness from others, let alone hostility to others. A nation, like an individual, must have a distinct personality but that does not stand in the way of friendship. In fact, without it there can be no friendship between national groups.

The creation of a Singapore citizenship has always been in the forefront of our policy. There have been legal difficulties of definition. There has been the need to keep in tune with our constitutional discussions. Even though it was not possible to us to get the independence of the full members of the Commonwealth like our neighbour (which is closer than a neighbour), the Federation of Malaya, we have always sought to have the same status for our citizenship as if we were independent. My predecessor as Chief Minister got it as one of his chief hopes, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not raised political or fundamental objection. He has always accepted our case and most recently and finally, hon. Members will recollect paragraph 51 of the Report of our constitutional discussions last April which reads:

"Her Majesty's Government propose that section 1 (3) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, should be amended to include Singapore, so that Singapore citizens would be recognised under the Act as British subjects and Commonwealth citizens,"

There are many reasons, Sir, why this is an essential step. We as elected Members of the Assembly owe our power to our representing the views of the people as expressed through the secrecy of the ballot box. As individuals, whatever our abilities or claims, we have no power other than the power which derives from the people. In defining the rights and qualifications of those who sent us here we are giving the only democratic authority to the Legislative Assembly of the self-governing Singapore to speak for the people of Singapore in defining policy, in framing legislation, and in raising and allocating the public funds of Singapore.

Moreover, citizenship not only gives political rights but also responsibilities, and it must be clear on whom these responsibilities fall and on whom the state can call for the services which the community requires. As therefore the citizens create and control political power, their qualifications must be clearly defined, but this is more than a matter of legal definition. That is the first essential step but it is not enough. The legal forms must be given the warmth and vitality of human emotions, but there can be none of the associations of a homeland, of belonging to Singapore, until there is a clear definition of those who are at home in Singapore. And it is equally clear that those who become our citizens and make this their home should declare their clear loyalty to Singapore. It is for that reason that the Bill requires an oath of loyalty and, in certain cases, an oath of renunciation.

We are a state of peoples of many races and cultures, and as a commercial port our windows are - and must always, be - open to all quarters of the globe. In this lies our richness and our vitality, but it also means that our loyalties must be all the stronger, not to be overwhelmed by the many pulls on us from cultures older and nations stronger than ourselves. We have to build up our own personality, drawing elements from what ever source can contribute to us, but it must contribute to our own integrated personality. We must not be an unstable association of outside influences with no internal strength or distinctive character. If we cannot create this character, this way of life of our own, something which is uniquely ours, then all the constitutional and legal apparatus of self-government will not provide a satisfying life for us or save us from the creation and exploitation of domestic divisions motivated by external influences for external purposes hostile to ours.

We are also a new community. Before the war, the majority of the people of Singapore were immigrants who had not come with a fixed intention to stay and who did not look upon themselves as Malayans. This has been changed by the effects of our population growth and the experience of the Japanese occupation. For the first time in our history, the majority of the people and the very great majority of those under 21 are Singapore-born and our citizens. Our population is predominantly and increasingly young, and the need to give an emotional and forward-looking element to a self-governing state is all the more important. We must generate a feeling of pride in our achievements which, though they may be small, can nonetheless be significant for Asia because of our special opportunities and inheritances, and because we are a shop-window on the great arterial sea routes of Asia.

If we look upon ourselves as perpetual poor cousins, always deprecating ourselves and our achievements, and praising everything from other countries, we arc ensuring our decline. The proverb blames those who gave a dog a bad name which sticks, but there are some of our community who believe that the dog should not wait to be given a bad name but should give a bad name to itself. That attitude, Sir, is the negation of nation-building and self-government. We must be proud of ourselves and be confident we can build our future as a nation. It is our aim to build ourselves as part of the Malayan nation, whose birth has given inspiration to us all and a profound sense of admiration for, and congratulations to, our neighbours. But the fact that we seek to find ourselves does not prevent the marriage of true minds, which we look forward to, with the Federation of Malaya when they have decided that our temperaments are not too incompatible. As the Irish might say, Sir, better divorce for incompatibility before marriage than after, and the better the chance to learn compatibility.

But there are too, Sir, the great number of adult citizens who have made this country of their adoption. This is their land in which they have worked patiently and productively. They have all contributed, each in their different way, to building up the commercial prosperity of Singapore, and their families with the education of our schools and with the opportunities and new horizons opened to them here have endowed us with a widening community, the new talents and skills and wider social activities of our younger generation on whom must fall the crucial burden of making or marring our great experiment in self-government. They have retained contacts with their families in their countries of origin for predominantly filial reasons but as the declining amount of remittances and the growing movement to Singapore of parents have shown, this country has become the country where they wish to live in the loyal focus of their families who, removing to Singapore, have had new opportunities to settle. Our success depends on the achievement of their loyalty and their Malayan outlook.

It is this group, Sir, who will have the greatest opportunity under this Bill. They have been reluctant to take up the citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Colonies which, apart from its legal difficulties, appeared to give up one non-Malayan nationality for another. They have felt that the process of naturalisation was a cumbrous one and, above all, they have not appreciated to the full the necessity for taking part in political responsibilities when that position seemed to have any element of uncertainty.

While they have been in this position - citizens in fact but without taking full legal rights - they have in some ways had the worst of both worlds. They have been vulnerable to criticism of their actions by those in our midst and overseas who have sought reasons to doubt their essential loyalty. This Bill will give the opportunity to our older contemporaries to set the rumours of wagging tongues at rest. The citizenship which they are offered is a Singapore citizenship and their oath of loyalty will be to the constitution of Singapore. The procedure will be simpler and the administration be under the control of the Government of Singapore exclusively. It is we in Singapore who will adjudicate their claims for citizenship and will select our citizens, for it is we who know our fellows and who will suffer the consequences of misjudging the loyalties of those to whom we are prepared to give the full powers and responsibilities of citizenship.

And finally, they will have the free choice whether to give their uninhibited and undivided loyalty to Singapore or whether to remain as aliens, welcome and friendly but nevertheless aliens and passengers rather than actors, in our drama of self-government. They will share the final say in all matters of policy, political, social or economic, and they will have every right and opportunity to play a full and satisfying and creative part in our community of widening horizons. In doing this it is misleading to say that they will be welcome, for they are welcome, as they have been welcome, and we have treated them as of ourselves. But there has been no legal right, no legal rebuttal of malice or mischief. This they can now have. They will not only be one of the family; they will have title deeds as members of the family in our Singapore homeland. And as such they will have an equal right in our democratic system to the vote, to stand for election and to strive for the highest office whatever is their religion, their language or their calling.

Sir, when we have a large element who continue legally to be aliens, we think of communities not so much in terms of racial groups but in terms of countries of origin. But now that we will all be Singaporeans together, we will be judged by our country, which is Singapore, and the common allegiance will grow in strength of idea and emotion until the communal divisions take the subordinate place which they inevitably must if Singapore is to be a name of peace and harmony and not a name of unrest and disharmony.

Members will have already seen the Bill and studied its clauses. These with the summary have already been published in the Press, and Members will not therefore expect me to go through the Bill in complete detail. The Bill follows in the main the pattern of citizenship laws in the Commonwealth countries and many of its provisions are taken from the British Commonwealth Act. Citizenship is a complicated subject and must be adapted to an infinite variety of circumstances and, for that reason, must be set out in precise detail. Perhaps, Sir, I may quote from the London Times an example of the kind of complication which arises:

"BABY WITHOUT A NATIONALITY ANGLO-AMERICAN BORN IN FRANCE The Times Correspondent August 20, 1957.

Anthony Lewis born in France to an American airman and his English wife is in the predicament at four months of being a stateless person. His father, a United States Air Force sergeant stationed near Paris, assumed the child would automatically be an American, but the United States Embassy has now disillusioned him: an American who marries a foreigner must have lived in the United States for 10 consecutive years for his children to have American citizenship, whereas Sergeant Lewis was born in Germany and has spent only eight years in the United States.

His wife suggested that the child should be British but was told at the British Embassy that British nationality is transmitted exclusively by the father.

The young couple then proposed that the son should be French, only to discover that a foreign child born on French soil must be registered with the French authorities at birth in order to claim French nationality, and now too much time has elapsed."

Sir, in general, the status of a citizen of Singapore may be acquired by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation. The basic pattern is that those born in Singapore, or those born outside Singapore whose father at the time of his birth was a Singapore citizen, shall be automatically Singapore citizens. Citizenship can be acquired by registration by those born in the Federation of Malaya, by those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and generally citizens of Commonwealth countries. Women who are married to citizens of Singapore will be eligible to be registered as citizens of Singapore. Special provision is made, Sir, to enable persons who would not otherwise be eligible and who are of good character and have resided in Singapore throughout the 10 years immediately preceding the coming into operation of the provision, to apply for citizenship by registration. The application must be made within two years of the coming into force of the provision and the Minister has the discretion to grant or refuse the application. Persons who become citizens of Singapore by registration must take the oath of allegiance, and if the person is a subject or citizen of a foreign country he must also renounce such foreign nationality or citizenship and, if so required by the Minister, divest himself of such foreign nationality or citizenship.

Sir, in regard to the 10-year residential qualification, I received a letter dated 1st July, 1957, from the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce reading as follows:

"This Chamber is always keenly interested in Singapore citizenship which concerns some 200,000 overseas Chinese who are qualified to become local citizens. It is understood that the Bill to enfranchise them will be tabled soon. The question was discussed at a Committee meeting of this Chamber held on 28th June. The Committee think that it will be much easier and simpler for an applicant to apply for such citizenship if eight years' residence instead of 10 be a qualification, which can be proved by Identity Cards issued in 1948. The meeting resolved that a proposal be made to the Chief Minister with a view to enabling any residents of Singapore who has been here for eight years from the date of the coming into force of the Ordinance to apply for such citizenship. This proposal is hereby presented to you for your favourable consideration."

Sir, I indicated to the representatives of the Chamber at an interview that while I was sympathetic to their request I had to point out that the 10-year residential qualification had been agreed to by an All-Party conference held in February 1957 and endorsed by the Legislative Assembly in March this year, and was subsequently accepted by the Colonial Office when the All-Party Delegation negotiated for a new constitution during the last visit to London in March/April this year. I expressed the view that this matter would have eventually to be debated in this Assembly before it could be taken up with the Colonial Office. Sir, I propose to commit this Bill to a Select Committee which will no doubt take due note of the views expressed by hon. Members in this debate in this connection.

Sir, citizenship can also be acquired by naturalisation by persons intending to reside permanently in Singapore who are of full age and capacity, of good character and have resided in the colony for at least 10 out of the 12 years immediately preceding their application. Special provision is made for persons who are serving in the armed forces. The Minister has a discretion in approving applications for naturalisation, and a person who acquires citizenship by naturalisation must take the oath of allegiance, and if he is a subject or citizen of a foreign country he must renounce such foreign nationality or citizenship, and at the end, if so required by the Minister, divest himself of such foreign nationality or citizenship. Minor children of persons who obtain citizenship by registration or naturalisation may be granted citizenship by registration on application being made by their parents or guardians.

Sir, in calculating residence in Singapore periods of absence for purposes of education or health, or any other cause approved by the Minister, may be treated as residence in Singapore, and short periods of absence amounting in the aggregate to less than six months will be disregarded. Periods of service with the armed forces not maintained in Singapore or with departments of the United Kingdom Government in the case of persons not recruited in Singapore will not be counted as residence in Singapore.

Sir, the provision for renunciation of citizenship and deprivation of citizenship follow clearly the provisions in the British Nationality Act. Where a person makes a declaration renouncing his citizenship of Singapore, the Minister shall cause the declaration to be registered and upon such registration that person will cease to be a citizen of Singapore. It is provided that the Minister may withhold registration of any such declaration if made during any war in which the Queen may be engaged. The Minister has power to declare that a person has ceased to be a citizen if he is satisfied that that person has voluntarily acquired citizenship of any foreign country or exercised the rights of a citizen in such a country. The Minister may also deprive of citizenship a person who has acquired the citizenship of Singapore by registration or naturalisation if it is shown that such citizenship was acquired by fraud, false representation or mistake, or if the person has shown himself disaffected towards Her Majesty or the constitution of Singapore, or has in wartime unlawfully traded or associated with an enemy, or has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two years or more, or has for seven years resided in a foreign country. In all such cases the Minister must, before depriving a person of citizenship, be satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that the person should continue to be a citizen of Singapore. Notice in writing must he given to the person affected before an order of deprivation of citizenship is made, and such person will have the right to have his case referred to a committee of enquiry consisting of a chairman who must be a person qualified to be a judge and two other persons.

Sir, there may be differences over the details of this Bill and, as stated earlier, I propose that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee. Sir, as the date of the general elections, which is also the date of the coming into force of the new constitution, is geared to our citizenship proposals, it is the intention of the Government to have the Third Reading of this Bill at the sitting on 16th October. I would therefore urge upon the Select Committee when appointed to expedite deliberations of the Bill and endeavour to report back to this House in time for the October sitting in order to allow the maximum time for the period of registration.

Sir, however much difference there may be in detail, I am sure that we all welcome this Bill towards which every Party represented in this House has made a contribution. I feel it a privilege that as Chief Minister it falls to me to move the Second Reading of this Bill which represents a major advance in Singapore's political development. We have now become a settled community and, with this view, the loyalty of those who have made this island their second home will find legal recognition. This brings a great strengthening of our community, a strengthening in the sense of our common responsibility for the building of a Singapore which, by its policy of social welfare, by its achievement of political unity and by its co-operation in building economic prosperity, will make a reality in our public life of all the warmth and inspiration we associate in our domestic life with the words "home and family". Through this Bill, Sir, we will be able to say with united voice, "Majulah Singapura!", and tomorrow with even greater strength and unity, "Merdeka Singapura!" Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

11.32 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, at long last the Citizenship Bill has come before this House for the Second Reading. I say at long last because this Bill should have come before this House a very long time before. In 1956 when we first went to London, we too had an All-Party Committee to deliberate on what we should do with this question of citizenship, and there was agreement then, agreement not only amongst the Parties but also between Singapore and London, lithe Government had the intention of pushing the Bill through it could have drawn it up, and it could even have been presented to this Assembly a year ago. But there was always that long delay and only until questions in this House were asked as to when this Bill could be presented to the Assembly, I think then Government started working on it and put up this Bill.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Complete nonsense!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: But anyway, I am happy that the Bill has come to this House for Second Reading and whatever we can say the Government seemed to think that it is time they should speed up the work and are now asking that we should hurry through it as quickly as possible. Yes, if it is a case of getting this Bill through as quickly as we can, we have always been of the opinion that it should have been passed a long time ago and we shall give them that co-operation.

It is a good thing, Sir, that at last we have a Bill that will make all who reside in Singapore and all who regard Singapore as their home and object of loyalty a chance to become citizens of Singapore. It is most peculiar, especially in this country, that we have a population half of which is not its citizens. All along we have heard dissatisfaction from the people because, they say, although they contribute to the coffers of the colony they have never had the opportunity of a say in its affairs. They have wanted to be part and parcel of this country. We give them this opportunity; we recognise this long-standing unsatisfactory state.

Furthermore, Sir, I agree with those who say that the destiny of Singapore is in the hands of those born here, but those who created the citizens of Singapore who now have the vote have never had the vote. During the last elections, of course, the old stable elements, the people who can think soberly, could not exercise a voice in its affairs. With this new Bill and with the rights given them, I think the future of Singapore will he bright because then the stable elements will have as much a say as the younger people, their sons, their children.

With inequality in a country affecting a large proportion of people, the Government can never rule efficiently. There will not be that degree of co-operation when the people think that they do not belong to this country.

I welcome this Bill because of all these aspects. However, Sir, on looking through this Bill, I must say that I am not satisfied with some parts of it. If we turn, Sir, to clause 22 (3) (a) on page 8, you will see that the Minister may, by order, deprive a citizen of Singapore by registration or by naturalization of his citizenship if he is satisfied that that citizen has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty or the Constitution of Singapore. Sir, I have been wondering, if this Bill comes into force, whether such people who have raved against the Rendel Constitution of Singapore should be deprived of their citizenship. And this, I think, affects not only Ministers but Assemblymen. What is the "Constitution of Singapore"? Is it the Rendel Constitution we are thinking about, or is it the constitution that is coming into force? It is all in the air. What I am thinking is probably the Government may be thinking of the "State of Singapore". But still we are not a state; we are still not an independent country. And I would like the Hon. the Attorney-General to show us examples of how, in the matter of speech or act, the Government will take action against such persons to deprive them of citizenship.

Clause 9, Sir, deals with the registration of citizens of persons residing in Singapore throughout the last 10 years. I agree with the Hon. the Chief Minister that all Parties have come to an agreement on this matter, but my Party has proposed that it be seven years. We will stand by what we have proposed before on compromise,, but we are agreeable to hear all views put forward, and we can certainly be persuaded to come to a period of eight years. In fact I personally think that eight years is the most reasonable time. We say that we follow the Federation of Malaya in all things and in a case like this I think in the Federation they fixed the period as eight years.

Clause 18 (a) fixes the period of absence from the colony at less than six months for purposes of calculation of residence. I think since this Bill is going into Select Committee, I would like Members on the Select Committee to consider this question of six months very carefully. Singapore is a commercial city and many people have to travel to do business or other things, and it may be that a longer period will be possible.

On the whole, however, Sir, we support this Bill and we hope that when it comes up the people of Singapore - those who are eligible or who will be made eligible - will come forward and claim themselves as citizens of Singapore. I hope too, Sir, that since they had a long period to think about this matter of whether to be Singapore citizens or aliens, I wish that they will make their decision as fast as possible.

11.43 a.m.

Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do agree with the Hon. the Chief Minister as well as the Member who has just spoken, that we all welcome this long-awaited Citizenship Bill. With the exception of clauses 9 and 15. I consider this Bill is as satisfactory as it can be. It is rather regrettable that in spite of the representations that have been made by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce as well as other public bodies, Government has not seen fit to reduce the residence qualification to eight years as in the Federation.

Although there is almost a unanimous clamouring by the Chinese Press for such a reduction, I have not seen any Press statements or otherwise giving a valid reason against it. The only one I have seen is the one in the editorial of the Straits Times on 28th August, 1957. In fact the editor advised me that I should not ask for such a reduction as he was of the opinion that I would never be successful. The reasons given by him against such a proposal are two. The first is that I was satisfied then and the matter of reduction was an afterthought; the second, it will only affect 5 per cent of the number of persons to be enfranchised.

Let us take the argument that it is a question of afterthought. Yes, I agree that we were quite satisfied then because we believed that 10 years was a fair compromise, but in view of the publication of the Constitution for the Federation I think the period of 10 years should be reduced to eight. What is wrong with afterthoughts? Are we not making amendments to Bills at almost every sitting of the Assembly in view of experience of changing circumstances? If we can do that, there is no reason why we cannot amend this Bill to reduce the period. Secondly, the question that the proposal affects only 5 per cent of the people to be enfranchised. Assuming that the number to be enfranchised is 200,000; five per cent of this will be approximately 10,000 and, together with dependants and relatives, the number affected will be nearly 30,000 to 40,000. The entire European population, including women and children, I understand, is approximately 18,000 people. Does it mean that because there are only 18.000 people, whatever fair request by them should be ignored by the Government? With due respect to the paper that must have the biggest circulation amongst the English-speaking public, I must say the argument put forward is hollow indeed.

There are two ways of looking at the question of a Citizenship Bill. One is where a certain party asked for it and we just put up a Bill but to place whatever obstacles we can think of in the way so as to prevent as many people as possible from getting it. Another way of looking at it is that we sincerely believe that these people who are about to be enfranchised are beneficial to this colony, and do everything possible to help them to obtain such citizenship. I do not believe anyone in this House has the opinion of the former and therefore we try to do what we can to help the people to obtain citizenship.

But before going into the matter any further let us just try to see what type of people we are about to enfranchise. Are they beneficial to this colony, or do they form a potential danger to it? These people, mostly Chinese, must have come from their native land when young and, through sweat and hard work, have helped to build up the prosperity of this colony. Apart from the Europeans, I believe they are in control of most of the big industries and business houses today. With the exception maybe of a few, I think they are all anti-Communist. These people, I believe, will be an asset to this colony and with citizenship I am sure they will strive hard to make a better Singapore, as they can then devote their entire loyalty to this land.

Another reason for reduction of the period to eight years is that I believe the best way of checking residence qualification is by the Identity Card. Identity Cards were issued from the beginning of October 1948 and dragged over in 1949. From the information given by the National Registration Office, 50,000 of these cards were issued in1949. With a view to registering about 200,000 people in a matter of a few months, in order that they should be placed on the electoral rolls for the coming elections, I think the one and only way is through the Identity Card system, if the question of 10 years is to be insisted upon, then the earliest a man can prove his residence qualification through his Identity Card is October 1958, making the question of elections in August 1958 an impossibility. There may be persons who may not be able to furnish the evidence of residential qualification to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. In this way we will be defeating the purpose for which this Bill is for.

In asking for this reduction to eight years, I sincerely believe it will not harm the interests of any community, otherwise I would not ask for it. I am glad that the Hon. the Chief Minister has proposed that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, where this matter will be further thrashed out.

11.54 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree with the hon. Member for Serangoon in his comments that this Bill has at long last made its appearance in this Assembly. The Government in fact should or could have prepared or drafted this Bill much earlier. To force it through now, to rush it in a matter of a month and five days and report back to this Assembly, is too fast work. If this Bill had been prepared much earlier, I do not think there would be need for this rush. But I would not, just as the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang, attack the Government for not seeing fit to reduce the residential qualification period to eight years. I presume that this Bill was drafted under an all-Party agreement and it should be drafted in the way that was agreed. Therefore I must congratulate the Government, after representations made by the public, the Chinese Press and the Chamber of Commerce, that it is prepared to commit this Bill to a Select Committee so that all references made here and in public could be carefully gone into. I also hope that the Committee will take into consideration and make available opportunities for oral representations, and not only receive written representations.

While going through this Bill, Sir, there are two points of importance which should receive careful consideration, and my two points agree again with those of the Member for Serangoon. The first point is the powers of the Minister, and the second again the question of residential qualifications. I will deal now with the first point. To entrust the whole burden of discretion on the hands of the Minister is definitely too heavy a burden. Although there is a clause which gives provision for appeal, to give the Minister arbitrary powers to withdraw any citizenship that has been given or to disallow any citizenship is too much. We have a Council of Ministers comprising of nine Ministers with the Governor as chairman. I think that all such powers should be entrusted to the Council of Ministers rather than to the Minister alone.

Coming to the question of residential qualification; why 10 years? Why not five, or three, or even seven or eight?

Mr Braga: Or none at all!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Or none at all? The hon. Member for Pasir Panjang has suggested eight and quite a number of people, too, have the opinion that eight is quite reasonable. When ten years was agreed, I think the question was not carefully gone into at the all Party meeting, and I think this is because the Independents were left out! Otherwise the suggestion would have been made. The hon. Member for Pasir Panjang said it is now an afterthought; although he agreed originally it should be 10 years, it should now be reduced to eight years. An afterthought is never too late because if it is good, in the interests of the people, it should be considered. I understand, Sir, that in the United States only five years' residence is required to apply for citizenship, in the Federation, as the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang also said, it requires only eight years; and our Singapore law for naturalisation only requires seven years. So why then a figure of 10 rather than considering eight, seven or five? If we take eight years, I agree with the comments of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce that as the Identity Card system came into being in 1948 it will be very convenient for the Government as well as the public to prove their residential qualifications through their Identity Cards; with the figure 10, nothing can be produced to prove residence of 10 years.

The Hon. the Chief Minister said lately that he would call another all-Party conference to discuss this matter. I wonder if he has done it and, if so, what is the result of that conference and why a Bill drafted in this way has been placed before the Assembly. One thing that strikes me, Sir, I cannot understand why the period of residential qualification is two years longer than that required in the Federation? The Hon. the Chief Minister said this morning that he is looking forward to the day when Singapore could be merged with the Federation. If that day should come, what would happen, Sir, if the Federation requires only eight years whereas Singapore requires 10? What of the difference in policy then and how will both Governments, which will then be one Government, deal with the matter?

Sir, as I have said, naturalisation only requires seven years and if we are going to enforce stricter qualifications for the application of citizenship I think we shall be losing sight of the basic principle of relaxing qualifications and encouraging our people to become Singaporeans. All political Parties whether in this House or outside this House have always claimed that they will fight for the rights of the people. I think this is the chance now to show their sincerity, and this is the time to show that they will, in fact, fight for the rights of the people, by relaxing these residential qualifications. If we really enforce this period of 10 years I doubt that we will be encouraging the people to become Singaporeans. But if we relax it, as the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang said, we will have an average of 10,000 people - I estimate it at 13,000 because 260,000 may be affected - and 13,000 more people will be allowed to register or become Singaporeans. That will again help them to elect their representatives to this Assembly and have their rights. If we are going to enforce 10 years it is tantamount to forsaking our own people here and discriminating against our own people.

Sir, compare the residential qualifications required for citizens or residents of the Federation, or of the Commonwealth countries, or even of the United Kingdom. If you read clause 8, Sir, it merely says:

"A person shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Minister in the prescribed manner, to be registered as a citizen of Singapore if he satisfies the Minister that he-

(a) is of full age and capacity; and

(b) has resided in the Colony throughout the two years immediately preceding the date of application; and

(c) is either-

(i) a person born in the Federation of Malaya; or

(ii) citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or

(iii) citizen of a Commonwealth country which has been specified by the Minister by notification in the Gazette to be a Commonwealth country to which this sub-paragraph applies."

Now, Sir, why discriminate against our own people? Why do we allow people from outside to have two years' residential qualification?

The Chief Minister: Allah ma!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: "Allah ma!" the Hon. the Chief Minister exclaims. We still are a colony and the colonial idea and colonial outlook is still in the mind of the Hon. the Chief Minister. That is why he says, "Allah ma!" He cannot express more than that.

I hope, Sir, that when this Bill goes to the Select Committee, very careful thought will be given to it so that there will not be an afterthought or a second thought or a third thought, and so that when this Bill comes back to the Assembly for its Third Reading it will be welcomed and supported by every Member of the Assembly.

12.02 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never heard a more willy-nilly speech than the one made by the hon. Member for Queenstown. He cannot even decide on the period. He said it may be ten years, eight years or even two years. I expect that every Member of this Assembly should come here with a definite thought in his head, and not come here and say things which he may not mean. Now the hon. Member for Queenstown compares the eight-year qualification with the period in the Federation of Malaya. I suggest that he should study the Federation law. There it is eight years for those born in the Federation - that is the difference - and they must also have another qualification, and that is the language test. I suggest that the hon. Member for Queenstown study the provisions more thoroughly before he comes and speaks to us.

12.03 p.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have listened with considerable interest to the Hon. the Chief Minister's exposition on this Bill. He has explained a number of points but there are quite a few more which require elucidation. It is important that the citizens-to-be of this country should understand clearly what the intentions of the Government are, particularly as representations to a Select Committee of this House are to be invited.

First, I wish to relate the definition of "Commonwealth country" in clause 2 to clause 8 (2) as proposed to be amended. Clause 2 as proposed to be amended lists the Commonwealth countries and now indirectly by reversion to the British Nationality Act, 1948, and these are presumably to remain the same countries as listed in the present clause 2. But in clause 8, whether in the present version or the version with the proposed amendment, the Minister can apparently pick and choose the Commonwealth countries he considers eligible for citizenship by registration by notification in the Gazette. In this context, Pakistan could be excluded, Ghana could be excluded, Australia could be excluded. It seems to us important that the Government should explain the intentions in this matter. Why not leave clause 8 (1) (c) (iii) that permits a citizen of a Commonwealth country with no powers of exclusion handed to the Minister?

Second, I wish to relate together clauses 8, 9 and 15. Clause 8, which states briefly a person born in the Federation, or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or a citizen of a Commonwealth country must have two years' residential qualification, remains permanent. On the other hand, clause 9 which refers to those excluded under clause 8, has a two-year life and lapses al the end of that period. Clause 15, referring to naturalisation, presumably (because further explanation is needed) virtually comes into operation after two years and supersedes clause 9 but not clause 8. Nobody, one imagines, would want to naturalise so long as clause 9 is in operation, and nobody eligible under clause 8 will ever want to naturalise. If this is the case and clause 15 is, so to speak, a follow-on to clause 9, then it seems that if the words "to whom section 8 of this Ordinance does not apply" should be inserted in clause 15 as they have been in clause 9.

Reverting to clause 9, there is only one observation I would wish to make. Regarding the period of ten years or eight years or whatever it might be that the Select Committee may consider, we are quite happy that this matter be thrashed out by that Committee. Reference has been made to the fact that we should follow the Federation period of eight years but we should be careful to see whether our clause 9 is exactly parallel. In the Federation Constitution, the relevant section states that a person must have "resided in the Federation during the twelve years immediately preceding the date of his application for a period amounting in the aggregate to not less than eight years". Clause 9 of this Bill, the relevant section is that he has "resided in the Colony throughout the ten years immediately preceding the date of the coming into operation of this Part of this Ordinance". Quite apart from the question of ten years or eight years, there is a considerable difference between the two sections. The Federation period is counted from the date of application; the Singapore period is counted from the date of operation of the Ordinance. In other words, if I understand it, if in Singapore you apply to register at the end of the two-year period, you will, under the present Bill, have to have resided almost 12 years in the colony. This seems to us open to some objection and will require looking into in the Select Committee.

I turn now to clause 22, where there is another difference from the Federation Constitution. At the end of subsection (3) of section 25 of the Federation Constitution, which is parallel to sub-clause (3) of clause 22 in this Bill, there is a proviso which reads as follows:

"Provided that no person shall be deprived of his citizenship under this clause if as a result of such deprivation he will not be a citizen of any country."

This proviso has been omitted from our Bill although it seems to be needed, particularly in view of the remarks made by the Hon. the Chief Minister in his speech, and we would like to know whether this is an intentional omission or an oversight.

Also in clause 22 I would refer the Hon. the Chief Minister to sub-clause (3) (c), deprivation of citizenship if the citizen "has within five years after registration or naturalisation been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years." Surely this should be limited to imprisonment for crimes of a serious or heinous nature? Would it not be absurd to deprive a person of such a precious thing as citizenship if the crime is a motor accident?

Lastly, I come to clause 25. The Bill itself is one thing but the procedure by which it is to be put into effect will make or mar its success. There will presumably be two forms of application for registration of citizens, one for those eligible under clause 8 and one for those under clause 9. The former group will for the most part be those who will have to be struck off the present electoral rolls but apparently are not specified as having to be of good character. The latter group are those who so far have been aliens ineligible for the vote and who have to satisfy the Minister that they are of good character. But whether application is to be made under clause 8 or clause 9, it is essential that the greatest possible simplicity in procedure is observed, and those eligible to apply are not frightened off by a multiplicity of requirements as if they were being subjected to an inquisition. If similar forms are used as those now used for naturalisation and the same expense is involved, nobody will register except those regimented to do so. We hope the system of finding four persons of high status to sponsor applications will not be introduced. Sponsorship under the present naturalisation rules are virtually a waste of time. However high and mighty the sponsor, it is practically of no avail-the ultimate test is a pass of good character by the C.I.D.

Only simplicity, and I would add speed, in procedure, without any feeling of persecution will bring forward the registration as citizens of Singapore the 200,000 or so for whom this Bill is primarily designed, and I hope that the Hon. the Chief Minister will indicate what is in his mind in this respect so that confidence can be engendered in the public mind here and now. In addition, the places to which applications for registration will be made must be numerous and easy of access, and the officials who assist the applicants must be trained to be as helpful as possible.

As I have said, the passing of the Bill is one thing, but the right psychological approach to Singapore's future citizens in order to obtain the maximum registration, is the most important consideration. In this the Government bears a very heavy responsibility.

Mr Speaker: I think it is time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.10 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill as presented to the House today is acceptable in the main to us and we more than welcome this Bill because from the very beginning when the Rendel Constitution was being discussed for elections to this House, we presented the case for the registration of voters to be automatically taken from the register of identity cards rather than by application through registration forms. We have been consistent in trying to enlarge the franchise in order that the people of this country can speak through the representatives voted by them and because of this we also asked that the period for which persons who were to be granted citizenship should be seven years instead of eight years when there was an all-Party conference before the delegation left for London in 1955. In order to present a common front to London, we agreed to a compromise and we accepted ten years but now that the Federation in its generosity has granted citizenship to persons who have lived in the Federation for 5 out of 12 years I think, Sir, we have a case to ask Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the clause in our constitution whereby we agreed to ten years. Her Majesty's Government has always been gracious and understanding of our problems and I am quite sure that if the Hon. the Chief Minister were to take up this point with Great Britain and submit the remarks that we have made in this House and the representations we have received from the people, Her Majesty's Government will be willing to grant us this concession and we should be able to receive Her Majesty's Government's assent whilst deliberating on this Bill clause by clause in Committee.

We are very glad that some 300 persons will now be entitled to exercise the vote to help us to steer the ship of state.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Three hundred thousand.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: I beg your pardon, Sir: these 300,000 persons will be able to help us to steer the ship of state in these troubled waters. Sir, these people on the whole have contributed much to this country's progress and development to make Singapore the prosperous and fine city that it is today comparable with any of the big cities in the world.

I was born in Singapore and I can say that most of us who were born here have taken an easier course in life in that we have entered the professions - the clerical services, the less-tiring work - whereas these people who have been immigrants have done the hard work and the real toil; they ran the small shops and when they prospered they started industries and helped in all the manufacturing that is going on at the present moment. It is only right that these people should as rapidly as possible be given a say in the government of this country.

2.36 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, you have heard from this side of the House that all of us welcome this Bill. Our complaint is this: this Bill should have come after the Marshall Conference in London. Although the mission was not successful, at least this Bill giving the fundamental rights to the people of Singapore who have settled down over here and who have made Singapore as it is now should have been given to them much earlier. However, I did expect that this Bill would have come immediately before this Assembly as soon as our present Chief Minister returned from London.

Sir, we wanted elections as early as possible in August this year.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Hear, hear!

Mr R. Jumabhoy: That has passed. If that was done, I do not think the Labour Front would have lost -

Mr Francis Thomas: Hear, hear!

Mr R. Jumabhoy: -their great leader. However during the course of the talks, the Chief Minister told us that we could hold the elections by April at the latest though we were anxious to hold them in December 1957.

Sir, this Bill is a short one and a very important one. The contents have been known to the public of Singapore for the last two years and I am sure that the Select Committee can finish their deliberations in two to three weeks at the latest.

However, Sir, there is one thing I want to stress: we want to hold the elections at the earliest moment and one of the Members of my Party on the Select Committee will move a proviso that those who want to register should register as early as possible and that those who register by 31st December, 1957, should get a chance in the first election. This of course will not debar the others. They can register if they want to a little later in a year or two. Their right of registration does not go away. But we do not want to wait any longer for internal self-government. I must stress and remind the Hon. the Chief Minister that in his speech he said that his Government was a caretaker Government; this was some time in May or June 1956. This is September 1957 and we are nowhere near it. Any attempt to delay it - I hope they will not do that in their own interest - will be attacked by us.

Sir, we have many post offices on the island. They can be made registering centres for the citizens of Singapore who want to register themselves there and at the same time those who need screening can be screened there. The argument will be, "Oh, we have got 250,000 voters." Yes, what does it mean? We have so many centres and we have the staff. The Government jolly well knew that this Bill was coming and that the elections were wanted. It was their duty to make the machinery ready.

Sir, many points were discussed during the debate this morning regarding the details and they will be taken up in Select Committee but I would like to draw attention to clause 22 (3) (a) which reads:

"The Minister may, by order, deprive a citizen of Singapore by registration or by naturalization of his citizenship if he is satisfied that that citizen-

(a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty or the Constitution of Singapore;".

I cannot understand that: "Constitution of Singapore" will be internal self-government. Now suppose someone or anyone demands that he wants complete freedom; will he be deprived of his right of citizenship because that will be against the constitution prevailing then? I hope the Committee will pay attention to the wording of the clause which I have just pointed out. Otherwise, Sir, we are quite happy with this Bill.

2.44 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Citizenship Bill marks the first step in the process of rationalising who we mean when we say the "people of Singapore". The next step in the process of rationalising is who we mean when we say the "people of Malaya", for we do not want to be just the people of Singapore. Today all kinds of people just because they are living and working in Malaya have claimed the right and are in our local Press called "Malayans", Indeed some political commentators of foreign origin and foreign loyalty have the audacity to write articles and editorials in which they cloak their foreign views behind the phrase "we Malayans". This offence has been most often committed by European journalists in the colonial-owned Press. After this Bill has become law, such people will be exposed. Only those with Singapore citizenship can include themselves in the phrase "we the people of Singapore". This is a healthy step in nation-building and we welcome it in that spirit.

We are not here to make an electioneering speech to win over the potential votes of those who may register under this Ordinance. All Parties contributed towards the taking of this step forward. Let us not descend into communalism just for vote-catching or we will ruin what we hope to achieve, namely a united and happy Singapore and later Malaya - a people prepared to work, to live and, if necessary, to die for Malaya above everything else. Let every Member in this House ask himself that question. If the answer is yes, then he qualifies.

2.45 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill which has been presented by this side of the Bench. However, I am somewhat perturbed to listen to the speeches of some of the Members of this Assembly, one after another, who have been standing up making suggestions or proposals that the residential qualification for citizenship should be reduced from ten to eight years. Arguments have been brought forward particularly by two Members of this Assembly who said that if in the Federation of Malaya the residential qualification is eight out of the last twelve years then why we in Singapore should not also adopt the same policy. Well, Sir, I do not see the logic of this argument. If we are going to follow what the Federation does, I say this: let us follow it all the way and not half the way.

I have here, Sir, in my hand a document which is the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April 1957. This is a document which is an agreement drawn after long deliberations and discussions and it was signed by Members of this Assembly who themselves represent responsible political Parties. I hope, Sir, that this document will not be turned into a piece of scrap paper.

2.47 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has to be judged according to whether or not it measures up to the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April 1957. All Parties signed this Report and the proposals on citizenship are contained in paragraphs 49, 50 and 51 of the Report. The spirit of our intentions is contained in this Report. Whether or not that spirit has been translated into the administrative machinery of the Bill is the test by which I suggest the Select Committee be guided in its deliberations.

Citizenship is essentially a question of loyalty. A man is a citizen of a state and has the right to determine the future of the state because he is part of an entity. It is really a subjective question: Is this my country? Do I owe it undivided loyalty? Am I prepared to fight and die for it, if necessary? But there is no known test yet that you can apply-no known lie-detector or psychological machine to record the heart beats or the brain beats of a man to test this. If there were, then we can scrap all this question of whether it is ten years' residence, whether one speaks a certain language or whether one swears an oath of allegiance or an oath of renunciation. You can go through all these formalities and still have no loyalty to a country. That is why every country is faced with this problem. The test is really qualitative. But the law and human knowledge do not provide us with the apparatus to measure the mind and the heart. Hence the law has devised quantitative tests. One rule of the thumb says, "If a person has been born and brought up in a particular community in a particular country, the chances are that he is loyal to it, will live, fight and die for it." And so certain countries in this world have developed in their laws the principle of jus soli - the right of citizenship by place of birth. It is because we are part of the British Empire that we had this particular system drafted into our laws. Whoever by the accident of his birth is born in any of the three Settlements in Malaya which in British legal fiction was British territory, becomes a British-subject and enjoys the rights of a citizen but those born in the Protected States, both the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States, which by British constitutional fiction were not British territories, did not automatically acquire the right of citizenship. Our problem in Malaya is the result of British colonial policy in the last hundred years. I am not flogging a dead horse when I say this because I think one of the greatest sins that the British colonial administration committed in this country was that, in their desire for rapid exploitation of the natural resources of this country, they had no immigration policy and no education policy. The result is that today the building of one nation and one people is the most difficult of all tasks facing Malaya. It has certainly created the most acute of problems in the South-East Asia region.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are other systems where they do not measure loyalty by the accident of birth. The quantitative test of loyalty of the Germans and the Chinese is whether the father is a German or a Chinese. If a German gives birth to a child, according to German and Chinese theory, he is always faithful to the fatherland.

But we in Singapore are now going to adopt as part of our legal system the theory that place of birth ensures loyalty.

Sir, for better or for worse, we have to face the problems that are existing. I ask the House when considering this Bill to remember that this is not just a question of electioneering, of whether it should be eighty years or eight years or ten years. Can we devise a quantitative test, a rule of thumb, which on the average, in the majority of cases, would mean that a man is loyal to this country? That is the acid test.

I would like to remind this House by referring to the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Proposals (No. 41 of 1957) where they have attempted to deal with this problem of a large immigrant population which has no political rights. It says in paragraph 9:

"It is proposed to accept an amended form of the recommendations of the Commission with regard to citizenship by registration of persons who, though not born in the Federation, were resident in the Federation on Merdeka Day."

The first qualification is residence in the Federation on Merdeka Day.

"is recognised that those who have shown their loyalty to the Federation and have made it their permanent home should participate in the rights and duties of citizenship. But such persons will in effect be obtaining citizenship by a process akin to naturalisation and it is therefore proposed that the Government should be in a position to exercise some discretion in the grant of citizenship to them. Accordingly, where the registration authority is satisfied that an applicant has the necessary qualifications, as recommended by the Commission, that authority shall give notice to that effect to the Minister appointed to exercise the functions of the Government of the Federation under Part III of the Constitution; and unless the Minister otherwise directs within such period as may be prescribed the authority shall register the applicant accordingly."

All countries all over the world have laws to deal with persons who are not born part of a community but who would like to be part of a community and who go through a process by which they demonstrate their unflinching loyalty to the new community. One hon. Member today quoted the American citizenship laws which say that one has only to reside in America for five years. I would like to remind that hon. Member that if he landed in Long Island he would wind up in some immigration warehouse and would be packed out of America in a very short time. There is already an entrenched and established community and that community sees to it that its cohesiveness as a social and cultural group remains intact and secure before the immigrant is taken in and absorbed.

Now, the British when they went round the world and carved out dominions for themselves, like the United States of America which were once British colonies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even South Africa, saw to it that they were "the people". This is a very important thing. You must start off with "self" before you can have "self-government." There must be a self. So the British when they enter a colony say, "We are 'the self'." Thereafter they say, "Whoever they may be, even Hungarian heroes of the October revolution who became exiled from Hungary after an abortive revolt, they go to Australia on a quota basis. Then the Australian Government sees to it that they learn the Australian language (which is quite different from the English language if one listens to it), and the Australian way of life. They are absorbed into an Australian community so that there is no danger of the Australian community becoming something different." So they did in South Africa, Canada and the United States. They carried on the British tradition. Anybody who goes to the United States of America learns how to speak American, faces the American flag - I do not know whether he sings "Stars and Stripes" or "Star Spangled Banner" - and demonstrates his loyalty in no uncertain terms, before he is digested into the American complex of society.

Now what happened in the British colonies? They in their arrogance thought that they were the world. So like the Romans, they said, "We will coin this concept Pax-Britannica. The peace of Great Britain is just like Pax-Romana, the peace of Rome." And they who were part of the subject people, not British by birth, race, origin or culture, but British as a result of conquest and conversion in mind - those for instance who converted their native names by acquiring Western initials in order to convert themselves into Europeans - were accorded this privilege. That was what the British wanted to do and what in fact at the height of their power they did succeed in doing. When a person said, "I am a British subject," he was like a man in the old days of Rome saying, "I am a Roman citizen" and must be treated differently from the other natives who are not Roman citizens. As a result of this, when the British went away from India to Burma, a lot of Indians went with them to Burma. When they came to Malaya, a lot of Indians and British and a lot of other people besides came to Malaya. In the early days when they introduced elections in 1948, we saw all these native expatriates claiming the right to represent the people of Singapore. In fact, I remember one who although not born in this country, because of her right as a British subject succeeded in becoming a representative of the people of Singapore. I am told that a warrant was later issued for her arrest because quite a large sum of money belonging to local citizens was missing and she had absconded back to the country of her origin. That was the kind of lunacy that we had in this Colony. For cheap labour, they allowed unrestricted immigration without any plan, without any policy and without any intention of creating or preserving the self. I do not condemn the immigration as such, but I condemn the Government which has no regard for the people of the country who have been assimilated and did not bother to educate or to provide education for those coming in. Today, with the renaissance of the motherland of each of the immigrant groups, chauvinist tendencies are incited. Yet at this critical juncture we have to call upon these immigrants to give this country their undivided loyalty. But that we must do because there is no other way. Either we do that or we face a long period of further unrest, more unhappiness and more instability. Let us face the facts: eventually the object of this whole operation is to build one people, and one nation whose object of their loyalty must be Malaya.

Sir, we did not achieve that when we went to London because we did not succeed in getting independence. We only got internal self-government, and hence the rather quizzical remark of the Member for Tanglin. He asked, "Why should there be this discretion to refuse to afford reciprocal rights to Commonwealth countries?" We made the distinction in our proposals - and the distinction is not made sufficiently clear in the Bill itself - between a Federation citizen and a Commonwealth citizen. This idea of Commonwealth citizen is the product of the "British subject" concept. As all these independent colonies became Dominions they had their own citizenship laws but the British coined a new concept "the Commonwealth citizen". Now it is absolute nonsense to say that because you are a Commonwealth citizen you can roam from one Dominion to another. You cannot. If a Commonwealth citizen of India tries to immigrate into the Dominion of Australia, he will find that he is locked up in an immigration depot and sent back. Similarly if any Commonwealth citizen from the Federation goes to Canada or to Australia, he will find that his "Commonwealth citizenship" does not entitle him to political rights in the other Dominions within that Commonwealth. What has happened is that all these countries have developed into nations by themselves and have created their own nationality laws. It is only the British who wish to carry on with this theory of Pax-Britannica to its logical conclusions and still allow a person born in Britain or in any British colony an automatic right of entry into Britain. Now that, Members of this House will remember, led to a lot of difficulties when a great number of West Indians went over to Britain. The British Government at one time thought of changing the laws when they found that this idealistic concept was going to militate against their own working class. It was because of that that we had to make this concession: whereas a foreigner wishing to naturalise in Singapore would have to go through the ordinary naturalisation regulations, a Commonwealth citizen need only stay here for two years. Now, Sir, we think it is monstrous that we should be asked to accord this privilege to Australians, South Africans and others who do not afford this privilege to us and who in fact would prevent us from entering their countries. Hence the rider in this Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April 1957 at paragraph 50 (d) which reads:

"(d) citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and other Commonwealth citizens, who had resided in Singapore for a continuous period of not less than two years, and whose application for citizenship in the prescribed manner and form had been accepted at their discretion by the Government of Singapore. In determining whether for this purpose a person had resided in Singapore for a continuous period, the Singapore Government would have a discretion to disregard periods of absence from Singapore which did not appear to them to be inconsistent with continuity of residence or loyalty to Singapore. In exercising their discretion [these are the operative words] to accept an application for citizenship the Government of Singapore would take into consideration whether or not the Government of the applicant's country afforded similar reciprocal rights to citizens of Singapore."

Those are the operative words. In fact, we did not want to afford anybody such rights as we considered this fiction of the Commonwealth citizen not worth preserving. The Member for Tanglin will remember that even a man who has been called the most pro-British statesman in Asia, Perdana Mentri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu Tunku Abdul Rahman, went back to London and rejected this proposal because he said, in Malaya, we have special conditions and we cannot accept this idea of reciprocal citizenship.

An hon. Member: He has not.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: He has. I have the Constitutional Proposals but I do not have the Constitution itself. No Commonwealth citizen goes to the Federation of Malaya, resides there two years and says, "Please, may I register myself as a citizen of the Federation?" because, said the Tunku, "We have special problems in Malaya. We want to make sure that what we are now creating is a self which will have complete cohesion and complete permanence."

But despite this defect in our new citizenship laws we say that this is a step forward but the ultimate step is to have our exclusive citizenship laws in one Malaya. If we are honest about merger and the building of one nation, when we draw up our citizenship laws, we must see where it is going to dovetail into the Federation citizenship laws because the moment the principle of merger is accepted we have to discuss the conditions for it. One of the first conditions that would have to be settled is: who are the citizens of the Federation of Malaya? If we draw up a list of rules making all and sundry citizens of Singapore in a way which the Federation Government will later find obnoxious and unacceptable, we will be placing ourselves in the most difficult position of having to scrap all those who have acquired Singapore citizenship and make them apply anew for Federation citizenship. I do not know if the hon. elected Ministers on the other side have had the opportunity or the desire to discuss these matters even informally on a purely speculative basis with their colleagues in the Federation. But it would be most unfortunate if at a later stage when we have agreed on principle to a merger and are working out the details, the Federation Government were to insist on a completely new set of rules and a completely new registration for citizens of the Federation. I therefore say that this question of eight years or ten years should be viewed from this angle. I appreciate the intensity of feeling of the Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Wong Foo Nam) which led to a very impassioned speech despite his loyalties to the Alliance. The Minister for Education was wrong when he said that in the Federation you have to be born in the Federation and to reside eight years. That was one of the original proposals for discussion but the ultimate position is as represented in the Constitutional Proposals which say - I have not got it, Mr Speaker, Sir: I was told when I went to the library that it might be in the Chamber itself but there were no amendments to these proposals as I understand them: but I would be obliged if the Hon. the Chief Secretary would give me his copy. Article 17, and this is the Article under which subsequently we will have to reconcile the rights of our citizens who have not been born in Singapore, reads:

"Subject to Article 18, any person of or over the age of eighteen years who was resident in the Federation on Merdeka Day,".

First qualification: if you are out of the Federation on Merdeka Day you are out.

"subject to the provisions of the Second Schedule,",

which I shall come to later,

"to be registered as a citizen upon making application to the registration authority if he satisfies that authority-

(a) that he has resided in the Federation, during the twelve years immediately preceding the date of the application, for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than eight years;".

That is correct: eight out of twelve.

"(b) that he intends to reside permanently therein;".

That is also in accordance with ours.

"(c) that he is of good character;".

That is also in accordance with ours.

"and

(d) except where the application is made within one year after Merdeka Day and the applicant has attained the age of forty-five years at the date of the application, that he has an elementary knowledge of the Malay language." To put it in simple language, it means that you have to show to the officer in charge that you have an elementary knowledge of the Malay language unless you are 45 years of age and you apply within one year. So even though you apply within one year and you are not 45 years of age you go through that drill. That is the authority on which the Member for Pasir Panjang and the Member for Serangoon are asking for revision from ten to eight. The Member for Pasir Panjang at least I must say is an honest man. In no uncertain way he said that he was in favour of eight, years but the Member for Serangoon in fact said, "I am ready to be seduced into changing my mind." He did not say that he wanted to be seduced but he issued invitations to people to make representations in order that he can say, "Alas, although I agreed to this White Paper and I signed this Constitutional Report in London, what to do, I am a weak woman."

Mr Braga: He is not here.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: So much the more pity for him. But what does our law say? It does not say anything about language test which I think will be one of the tricky points later on with the Federation, but it says this: ten continuous years. Now, Sir, when we amend this (if we amend this) let us bear this in mind. If the change we are going to make is going to bring our laws more in line with the Federation laws then on principle my Party supports it. If the move will make our laws more incongruous with the laws of the Federation, my Party opposes it. I do not consider the question of eight or ten years a matter of life and death but I do consider that the principle of congruity with the Federation's laws a matter of great importance. I therefore suggest that when the House appoints a Select Committee to go into this Bill, the Select Committee will accept that principle. I can understand the unhappiness of the Hon. the Deputy Chief Minister; he has the right to call upon us to honour the bargain. We had all worked out a compromise in 1956. We reaffirmed our agreement to the compromise in 1957 and for anyone of the Parties to that agreement to back out on any excuse or pretext is most unfortunate. At the same time I would like to remind the Deputy Chief Minister that if the Federation is prepared to accept eight years in the case of those who resided in the Federation perhaps he may not be stretching the point if he conceded that same principle to people who have resided in Singapore. But whatever it is, it would be in the interest of everybody to try to sit down and argue this thing out rationally in a friendly way, keeping in mind the overriding principle of communal unity and solidarity, rather than coming to this Assembly to make electioneering speeches I know everybody has in his mind the big question mark: how many can my Party workers get registered and how many can I bring to the polls in my cars to vote for me? That is part of the process of electioneering but all that said and done, we have to run this country as a coherent community. It is not in our interest to start, like the Deputy Chief Minister has done, on a very stiff and determined stand, or like his colleague in the Alliance, the Member for Pasir Panjang, to assail the proposals with such vehemence and with so uncompromising an attitude. We can resolve this and I hope in Select Committee we will, to the satisfaction of everybody.

Finally, Sir, this problem which the Member for Serangoon and his colleague the Member for Telok Ayer queried - clause 22 of the Bill - the question of deprivation of citizenship. Now I can excuse the Member for Serangoon because, unlike the subject of boys' clubs, he is not very conversant with this matter. I know that he is an authority on boys' clubs and I know that he does not pretend to be an authority on the laws of citizenship, but I cannot excuse the Member for Paya Lebar (his colleague) for allowing him deliberately to mislead himself into misleading us and misleading the people of Singapore. Every acquired citizenship in any part of the world runs the risk of termination. There is only one kind of citizenship of which one cannot be deprived and that is one acquired by right of birth. This is British constitutional theory. There are other theories, I think, where although you are born a citizen, you can still be deprived of it to make you a stateless person. But in British legal theory there is only one kind of citizenship of which a person cannot be deprived, namely, where you are born a British subject. As a result of that, w, have to face up to the fact that all acquired citizenships can be revoked and let us read what the Federation says on this question of termination of citizenship; this is paragraph 11 of the White Paper No. 41 of 1957 (Federation of Malaya):

"Subject to drafting amendments, it is proposed to accept all the main recommendations of the Constitutional Commission with regard-to termination of citizenship other than those dealing with deprivation on the acquisition or exercise of citizenship of a foreign country. The Commission recommended that the Federation should be entitled to protect itself against disloyalty of any citizen who either voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship or takes advantage of his being a foreign citizen under the law of his country of origin. It has been agreed that this recommendation, if accepted, together with the other related recommendations of the Commission would not give the Government adequate powers to require that undivided loyalty to the Federation which is considered to be so vital for the future. It is therefore proposed that if the Government of the Federation is satisfied that any citizen has at any time after Merdeka Day acquired by registration, naturalisation or other voluntary and formal act (other than marriage) the citizenship of any country outside the Federation (i.e. including Commonwealth countries),".

Which shows the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) that this business of the Commonwealth being all one family sharing the same house is just nonsense! The operative words are:

"the Government may by order deprive that person of his citizenship. It is further proposed that if the Government is satisfied that any citizen has at any time after Merdeka Day voluntarily claimed and exercised in a foreign country any rights available to him under the law of that country, being rights accorded exclusively to its citizens the Government may by order deprive that person of his citizenship. It has also been agreed that persons who have become Federal citizens or citizens of the Federation by registration or naturalisation before Merdeka Day should be liable to be deprived of their citizenship under the above provisions as if they had obtained it by registration or naturalisation after Merdeka Day."

Let us be honest about it then. There is no country anywhere in this world which gives foreigners the right of citizenship without that reservation that the citizenship can be terminated under certain conditions. We can say that we must make sure that the citizenship rights are not arbitrarily or unjustly terminated. We can provide machinery to see that it goes before some kind of quasi-judicial tribunal before the final administrative act or even after the final administrative act. But deliberately to allow the Member for Serangoon to expose his ignorance in order that we can all be misled is quite unfair and quite unworthy of the Member for Paya Lebar. In spite of his many years in the world of commerce and housing. He could not have forgotten one of the fundamental features about nationality, namely, an acquired nationality is one which can be revoked. I say right here and now that if any person acquires nationality and then goes back to Formosa or Jamaica or-

The Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode): Peking.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Peking or British Guiana or Britain, and as a result of changing his mind he no longer desires to be a subject of this country, then he ceases to be one and that is all there is to it. I sincerely hope that when we go to Select Committee we are not going to spend a long time haggling over what is established constitutional practice. I would like to make our position quite clear.

But I think we will be deceiving the people of Singapore and deceiving ourselves if we believe that by this act we have solved our problems. This is only the first step in the act. First, to those who are prepared to make this their home and be part of our nation, we take them in and afford them all political rights. Then we give them all that goes with these political rights. It is only when you give flesh to the bones of a political constitution that we make loyalty a living reality. The British failed to make their Pax-Britannica a living reality because like the French they never believed in it themselves. First, they said, "All those are citizens who are British subjects," and then with a lot of hypocritical legislation they distinguish between British subjects of U.K. origin and British subjects of non-U.K. origin. Many of us will remember the long years before this whole myth exploded, the myth that those of U.K. origin were entitled by divine right to expatriation pay, home leave, etc, and those not of U.K. origin were not entitled to these things. At one stage before the war, local British subjects were not entitled to enter the same service. After the war, they were put in the same service but they were not entitled to certain other privileges. That was the reason why it failed, because it was not practical and it was not made a living reality. The French have tried it: this business of Algiers being part of metropolitan France. Nobody, not even the Frenchman, believes that because you are a French citizen therefore you enjoy all the rights of a Frenchman. That is the reason why the whole idea collapsed and failed. We must not allow this to happen in Malaya. In Singapore we have no control over the situation in the Federation of Malaya, but as a matter of plain common sense if you say to a man that he is a citizen of a country and he has got to bear all the obligations of a citizen but you do not afford him the same rights as every other citizen then you are not going to inculcate or stimulate in him the undivided loyalty which other citizens who enjoy these privileges would give. In fact you cannot expect it from him. This is the first step. The next step is slowly to integrate these people who are going to register under our Singapore Citizenship Ordinance into part of the society of Singapore because only then can we make them part of "the people" and when we say the people we mean them and us.

3.30 p.m.

Mr Goode: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to join issue with the Member for Tanjong Pagar's exposition and theories on the background of Pax-Britannica or his ideas of the failings of the British citizenship law. I want to refer to quite a separate and comparatively humdrum side of this business which was raised earlier in the debate.

It was clear from remarks which have been made that there is still some apprehension about the workings of the procedure which we contemplate when this Bill is made law, and I should like to state quite categorically, to remove such misapprehensions, that the whole purpose of the procedure under this Bill when it is enacted will be to make the process of applying for citizenship as simple and as easy as possible. I think one of the reasons for wanting a Singapore citizenship was the desire to simplify the procedure and to shape the terms to the necessities and the susceptibilities of the people of Singapore, and that will be very much in our minds in working out the mechanism of dealing with applications under clauses 8 and 9 - the applications to be registered.

We have determined that we will charge no fees. We shall not require sponsors and we shall do our utmost to keep the form down to the simplest possible request for the information which is absolutely required in order to come within the terms laid down in the law. We will do our best to see that these forms are provided not only in English but in Malay, Tamil and Mandarin so that they will be intelligible to a person who is literate in any of those languages. We will also do our best to decentralise the whole procedure by setting up sub-offices wherever we can find suitable premises - post-offices have been suggested - and they are of course very much in our minds. We intend, Sir, if we can, to organise a widespread machinery throughout the island so that persons who wish to apply under these two clauses can do so as near as possible to their homes with the minimum amount of officialdom and without expense or with the minimum expense to the applicant. I would like to make it quite clear that we shall do our best to make the machinery as simple as possible and to make it work as quickly as possible.

3.35 p.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a most important Bill. We are making a break with the colonial era. Before, the test of political rights is whether a person is part of the British Empire and not whether he is a Malayan or Singaporean. So we have the unholy spectacle of people born in England like the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) and people born in India like one former Legislative Councillor, Mrs Menon, who absconded back to India having the right to stand for election, but not those who were born in Johore because they are not British subjects. Now we are going to put all this nonsense right. This Bill does not go all the way to put it right but it is the first step and we welcome it for it will give political rights to those who are really loyal Singaporeans and to those who happen to be long residents of Singapore and born elsewhere.

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

3.36 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed very sad to see that this debate on a Bill which was drafted in accordance with an agreement reached in London as a result of an All-Party delegation which got its powers from this Assembly in March last year has been turned into a play for party politics.

Sir, the Members of the Liberal-Socialists which Party has been hoping to be the ruling Party during the next election - God bless them-

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): God bless Singapore.

The Chief Minister: -have been saying in this Assembly a number of things which appear to be childish and which indicate that they have not studied the Bill properly nor do they appreciate the purpose of the Bill.

With regard to the residential qualification, Sir, I said that I was in sympathy. If we had wanted to play party politics, we could have boldly inserted in the Bill an eight-year residential qualification and try to claim that it was a decision of the Government. We do not wish to play party politics in a matter which has been the result of an all-party unity. We would not have been successful in London during our negotiations if there had been no all-party unity. I even said in my earlier speech, Sir, that this was a Bill in which all Parties represented had contributed towards it. We did not claim that it was ours and ours alone although this Bill is actually in discharge of an election pledge of the Labour Front.

The Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy), Sir, seems to have the craze for early election. Surely, Sir, this Government is also anxious for early election but it must not be forgotten that the date of the general elections which is the same date as that for the coming into force of the new constitution is governed by paragraph 54 in the agreement signed in London by the All-Party delegation. Under this agreement, it is no longer left to the Government to choose a date for the elections but it is to be left to this Assembly to move an Address to the Governor that it is time for general elections.

The other point, Sir, raised by Members of the Opposition has in part been answered by the Member for Tanjong Pagar but as this Bill is going to be committed to a Select Committee, feel that all the points raised that have not been answered could be answered by the Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.