CLARIFICATION OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN "FEDERAL NATIONAL" AND "FEDERAL CITIZEN"

Mr David Marshall asked the Prime Minister whether he will clarify the distinction between "Federal National" and "Federal Citizen", two phrases used in a recent broadcast by him.

The Prime Minister: Sir, in the memorandum which has been tabled as Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, the term "Federation National" has been used in preference to the term "New Federation National" so as to avoid confusion with the term "Federation Citizen", which means a citizen of the present Federation.

The original English terminology for a person's association with a country is "nationality" as used in several Acts of the British Parliament and in the legislation at present in force known as the British Nationality Act of 1948. Members will note that by international practice the description of a person's association with and protection by a country is the term "nationality". This practice is followed by us in Singapore in our passport application forms and in the passport itself. We do not use the more modern term extant in some of the newer Dominions of citizenship.

I leave some blank forms-not permanently on the Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, because these are valuable documents. I am not suggesting that anyone in this House wants to get away in a hurry, although I have heard that some are trying to disguise themselves by growing beards and wearing spectacles! For the scrutiny of Members of the House, I lay the application form and the passport on the Table.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Can the Prime Minister please tell us what are the rights which a national has?

Mr Speaker: Order. If I allow that question, it can open up a very wide debate on the subject. I think the question is just an inquiry as to whether the Prime Minister will clarify the distinction between "Federal National" and "Federal Citizen". I am sure the Member for Queenstown will make a note of that and say what he wishes to say when we come to debate the Prime Minister's motion, which asks the House to accept certain heads of agreement between the Federation and Singapore.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Marshall, is it a supplementary question?

Mr David Marshall: Yes, please, Mr Speaker, Sir,I ask of the Prime Minister if I am wrong in understanding that a Federal citizen is a British national by virtue of the Constitution of the Federation and section 1 of the British Nationality Act of 1948? The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the Prime Minister answers - he can and may answer later on if he wishes to - it occurs to me that that the Member's supplementary question under our Standing Orders, might not be in order. The Standing Order I have in mind is Standing Order 19 (1) (h). It says:

'a question shall not be asked for the purpose of obtaining an expression of opinion, the solution of an abstract legal case or the answer to a hypothetical proposition;'.

Anyway, if the Prime Minister is in a position to answer, he can do so.

The Prime Minister: Sir, again I am speaking now on general principles since it is a long time since I took my examination on British Constitutional Law. The British Nationality Act introduced for the first time the concept of nationality and Commonwealth citizenship. The idea is that although Canadians, Australians and South Africans did not want Indians, Pakistanis, Ceylonese and Malayans to move in and out of their country freely, the British wanted to maintain this concept of the unity of one family of different coloured children, and so they coined this concept of the Commonwealth citizen. Everybody became a Commonwealth citizen; and as a Federal citizen is a Commonwealth citizen, he was therefore entitled to enter the United Kingdom. I do not know what has happened now about the West Indians going to the U.K. in strength. But this concept asks Commonwealth citizenship - a common term - to embrace all races in the Commonwealth, but at the same time keeping British nationality, which was introduced by the British Nationality Act of 1948, separate and distinct.

I am not sure what the purport of the question is, but if the Member for Anson will give me an intimation before-hand and allow me not to be my own legal adviser, which is the last thing I think I am competent to be, I will consult the State Advocate-General. I am told. Mr Speaker, Sir, that one should never be one's own lawyer, and I often have to resist the temptation of not doing the things that I think I want to do when I am a participant and at the same time advising myself. I have done it once, with a great deal of satisfaction for myself. But I was told that normally it is better to leave these things to another man who could explain it more dispassionately -

Mr Speaker: Would that apply to the Member for Anson?

The Prime Minister: If the Member for Anson will indicate what are the parts that he requires clarification, then I will seek advice from the State Advocate-General who is competent to advise us in these matters.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my submission that there can be no such thing as a Federal national because -

Mr Speaker: Order. There again the Member for Anson is embarking on a debate on this particular subject. He is not entitled to do so during Question Time. If he has a supplementary question, by all means ask it.