MERGER (SINGAPORE/FEDERATION OF MALAYA) (White Paper)

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [20th November, 1961],

"That, whereas it has always been the avowed objective of all nationalists of Malaya to achieve the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya and to remove the artificial division created by the British by their policy of "divide and rule", this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya."-(The Minister for Labour-Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim).

Question again proposed.

2.32 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I was speaking about citizenship - the issue that is going to be the nail in the coffin of the P.A.P. Unfortunately, although the vernacular Press has given a fair coverage - and a good coverage - of the issue which is so very important to every person in Singapore, the English Press has left it almost completely out. I hope in future such an important issue like citizenship would be given decent coverage, so that every person in Singapore can see both sides of the question. Only then can everybody decide properly the future for himself as well as for the whole of Singapore.

I saw in the papers also, Sir, that they referred to my mention of the U.M.N.O. Government. Of course, that was a technical error. I really meant the Alliance Government.

When the House adjourned yesterday, Sir, I was quoting the Prime Minister on his clarification of citizenship as published in the Straits Times of 26th October, 1961. The words I quoted read as follows:

'Any Singapore citizen who wishes to live in the present Federation and become a citizen of the present Federation can apply for citizenship of the present Federation under the laws of the present Federation.'

I was saying, Sir, this innocent-looking statement covered a multitude of sins. It means, in the first place, if a Singapore citizen goes to the Federation after the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, he will become disenfranchised and will not be allowed to vote or to stand for election in the Federation. Secondly, he can get Federal citizenship rights only if he stays there for ten years in order to satisfy the necessary residential qualification, pass a Malay language test, and must be considered by the Federation Government to be of good character. You know what this means, Sir. It means that if you do not agree with the Federation Government politics, you can go and whistle for your citizenship. In short, he will be treated like any alien, although he has a so-called Federal nationality that is supposed to make him equal to the Federal citizen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the present moment, so I am informed, a Singapore citizen born in Singapore, and thereby also a British subject, has the right to vote and stand for election if he goes to the United Kingdom - the colonial master's country. But - and this is the irony of it - after the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, even those who are born here will not have those rights in the Federation - our so-called partner. It is humiliating, Sir, that under this phoney merger a Singapore citizen when he goes to the Federation will receive less equality and trust than what he receives today in the country of his colonial master. Mr Speaker, Sir, the word "phoney" is indeed a gross understatement in describing this so-called merger of the P.A.P.

There is also, Sir, another humiliating fact about the P.A.P.'s phoney merger; that is, under this phoney merger, all those persons who will be born in Singapore after the date of this phoney merger will not become Federal citizens by right of birth. This is something which the P.A.P. has concealed from our people and I challenge the P.A.P. to deny this. Perhaps the Prime Minister would care to clarify the earlier clarification in order to clarify his conscience for this shameful, disreputable and unpardonable betrayal of the people.

Let me now, Sir, discuss the differences between the term "citizen" and "national". "Citizenship" and "nationality" are two distinct concepts. "Citizenship" expresses the rights of an individual within a State, and "nationality" his rights outside the State.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Lawyer baharu!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: When the Prime Minister says that everyone is going to get something more, he means that every Singapore citizen is to become a Federal national. But what are the rights and privileges of a national? The Prime Minister has not been able to give anything more than the right to a Federal passport. In fact, there is really nothing more. I am not saying that the right to a passport is not good, but that is what every Singapore citizen today already has. To the citizen of Singapore, what difference is there whether or not he possesses the same passport as the Federation citizen? How many of our people in the first place can afford to go abroad and so need passports? Our workers, farmers and hawkers earn hardly enough to keep body and soul together, let alone have money to go abroad. It would be different with the Ministers. I think the Prime Minister must be getting quite tired of Cameron Highlands. The Federal passport does not benefit the vast majority of our people one wee bit. It is what the Chinese would describe as something good to look at but not so good to eat.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: How can you eat a passport?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Or is it the intention of the P.A.P. Government to deny passports even to Singapore citizens in future? Is it the intention to restrict still further the freedom of travel? The P.A.P. also says that being a Federal national would make the Singapore citizen equal to the Federation citizen before the law and the courts. But, Sir, this is again something we already possess. So where is the additional "more"? Where is the additional gain? If this is a truly democratic society, it makes no difference whether a person is a citizen or a non-citizen, a national or a non-national, in a court of law. One would Imagine that all persons would be equal before the law in a democratic society, and not just nationals. So what is so wonderful about being a national? The only other distinction - and this is the latest development - is that a national may be called up for military service in future. The Prime Minister said that he did not want to confuse people with the new phrase called "new Federal citizen". This is sheer sophistry. If the Prime Minister did not want to cause confusion, he should not have brought in the new word "national". The fact that after becoming a Federal national the Singapore citizen still has to apply for registration to become a Federal citizen is proof enough that what the people of Singapore are getting is even worse than second-class citizenship. In fact, the P.A.P. arrangement will mean three types of citizens as far as Singapore is concerned. I shall enlarge on this later.

This talk of citizen and national reminds me of an article I read sometime ago, which rather vividly brings out the deception and sleight of hand which is being practised by the Prime Minister. The story says the Prime Minister takes out a 20-cent piece and a 50-cent piece. He holds up the two coins showing the front face, or obverse side, to the people. And he says, "See the head of Queen Elizabeth II on the two coins. They are the same. The words on both pieces read 'Queen Elizabeth II' and therefore they are the same, and equal." That is what the Prime Minister says. But the Prime Minister also has been very cunning. He has hidden the reverse side of the coins which, if read carefully, will tell us that the coins are of different denominations. One is a 20-cent piece, the other a 50-cent piece. They are not the same, and they are not equal. So, Sir, you can see what a smart alec our Prime Minister is.

There is a Chinese proverb which describes this very accurately and picturesquely. The Prime Minister, according to the proverb, wants to pass fish eyes for pearls. Does he hope thus to make everybody satisfied, everybody happy? Let me quote, Sir, the Straits Times of 25th August. He was talking to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation:

'"We want to make Malaya happy and Singapore happy". And Mr Lee echoed him, "Everybody happy".'

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Except Tun Lim.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Who is "everybody"? Dare he go to the country and prove that?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown must know that I have already said in this Assembly many, many times that I do not wish to hear voices raised. He must remember that. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I apologise, Sir. I shall try and control my emotions especially when I conic to those parts which tell everybody of the base treachery of the people sitting opposite.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps if the hon. Member for Queenstown remembers that he is addressing the Chair, he will not try and intimidate the Chair by raising his voice. Remember that he is addressing the Chair, and not Members opposite.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I shall bear that in mind, Sir. I would ask the Prime Minister and the not-so-expert Minister for Finance to read the Federal Constitution, Part II, pertaining to fundamental liberties. These are the rights of all persons resident in the Federation. They apply equally to citizens and non-citizens. Most of these rights apply even to enemy aliens. In fact, Article 8 of the Federal Constitution states - I will quote, Sir:

'8 (1).-All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.'

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. The very next subsection makes a very vital distinction. I would ask him to read it to this House - there is a vast distinction where only citizens are protected.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will read that second subsection as well.

'(2).-Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination [no discrimination] against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.'

For me, Sir, the relevant portion, to a not-so-legal-minded doctor, is the first one. And you will note, Sir, it does not say all citizens but all persons, i.e. whether they are citizens or non-citizens. So what does this equality before the courts mean to the ordinary man in the street? It means that before he can become recognised as an equal under the P.A.P. merger, he must first be arrested and brought to court. Sir, we -

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): What is all this about? I do not -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Only people like the Minister for Health and Law who expect to be arrested sometime or other -

Mr Byrne: By whom?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - will find the the need for such protection. The rest of us, who are all peace-loving and law-abiding citizens and who will never have the misfortune to be brought to a court of law, do not want such equality. We want equality, not just inside the court but outside the court as well. That is what we mean by "equality". The concept of Federal national could have very little meaning and significance within the Federation. What really counts in the Federation is citizenship, and there would at least be two types of citizenship under the P.A.P.'s type of merger, i.e. a Federal and a Singapore citizenship.

The Singapore citizen, under such an arrangement as we are told, will only be able to vote in Singapore. The Federal citizen, on the other hand, will vote in the Federation. In other words, a Singapore citizen who goes to the Federation after this so-called merger will automatically become disenfranchised. What sort of a merger is this when a citizen of one part in one identity is treated like an alien when he steps into the other part in the same identity? What sort of a unification of our people is this, when Singapore citizens will possess separate citizenship rights and will not be able to share a common political life and destiny with the citizens in the Federation? Under the P.A.P.'s so-called merger, without this common political life and destiny with the people of the Federation, the people of Singapore will not be able to give expression to and obtain redress for their grievances and aspirations through the normal democratic channels.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the Member for Queenstown does realise that he has been repeating that sentiment time and time again. I know it is difficult perhaps when dealing with three motions at the same time, but he must so reorientate his speech that there should not be any repetition as far as it can be helped. We have a Standing Order which is aimed at trying to cut the debate short. I had better read that Standing Order for the benefit of all Members:

'54. The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.'

But I will not say that the repetition up to now has reached the stage of being tedious. Anyway, I think that Standing Order should be borne in mind by all Members of the Assembly when they make their speeches. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, it is unavoidable that there must be some repetition in places, because facts have to be brought out at every stage to prove certain points; and if they are not brought out again, then the whole relevance and the whole emphasis is lost. You will appreciate my difficulty, Sir, and I understand your impatience too about that.

I was saying, Sir, that while the people in the Federation can interfere with the affairs of the people of Singapore, through the Federation Government, the people of Singapore will not have the full democratic right to inform and influence the people of the Federation. The only contact we will have with the people in the Federation under such a treacherous arrangement will be through the few token representatives from Singapore in the Federation legislature. Under this phoney merger with separate citizenship, the people of Singapore will be kept politically isolated from the people of the Federation. We in Singapore will be treated as though we are suffering from some infectious disease that requires us to be permanently segregated from the people of the Federation, because we will not possess Federation citizenship under this phoney merger. All Singaporeans who do not see eye to eye with the Federation Government can be conveniently prevented from crossing the Causeway. Already, Sir, we have an outstanding example almost staring us in the face. The Federation Government has debarred permanently one Inche Said Zahari, prominent Malay citizen of Singapore and a former editor of the Utusan Melayu, from entering the Federation. The Prime Minister touched on Said Zahari's case only a couple of days ago. Inche Said Zahari, Sir -

Mr Speaker: I cannot allow the Member for Queenstown to go into the details of that case. It has nothing to do with this particular problem we are discussing. He can just mention it in passing as illustrative of an allegation he has made. But I do not think he should go into details.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am not going into details, Sir. I just want to bring out the point, Sir, that although Inche Said Zahari is a son of the soil, but just because he happens to hold different political views - views different from those held by the politicians who are in power in the Federation - he has, therefore, been debarred from entering the Federation.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not make statements like that unless he can substantiate them. If he can do so, then, of course, he is entitled to make that statement. If he cannot substantiate it, then he might find himself guilty of abuse of privilege.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway. Sir, that proves the point, that people from Singapore can be prevented from going into the Federation. Under these circumstances, how can anyone say that there is a bringing-together of the peoples of the two territories? What sort of merger then is this? It is like telling the people, say, of Mountbatten constituency or Farrer Park constituency that they are not fit to share a common citizenship with the rest of the people of Singapore; that they must have a separate citizenship; that they can vote and stand for election only in their own constituencies; that they cannot come out and campaign outside their own constituencies; and that if they wish to vote outside their own constituencies they must re-apply all over again for the citizenship right possessed by the rest of the people of Singapore. I am sure the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Mount-batten will not relish things like this. How would the people of Mountbatten feel if they were to be treated like this? But this is precisely how the people of Singapore will be treated if the P.A.P.'s phoney merger is pushed through. They will be treated as second-rate citizens. First segregated, then devitalised and throttled. In fact, the Prime Minister's merger amounts to this. All the people of Malaya, including Singapore, will belong to one club, the Federal National Club. This club is only a show-case to the outside world, a pretence that the people of Malaya and Singapore are united as one. But, within this club is another more important and privileged club, the Federal Citizens Club, in which all the citizens of the present eleven States of the Federation will be Members, but from which Singapore citizens will be completely excluded. We will be treated like social outcastes, not fit and not allowed to mix freely as equals with our Federation brothers across the Causeway. This exclusive snobbish club is reminiscent of the exclusive Tanglin Club which the Prime Minister was so fond of ridiculing in his former anti-colonial days. The Tunku is prepared to throw open the doors of this exclusive Federal Citizens Club also to the citizens of the three Borneo territories. But he is not prepared to open its doors to the citizens of Singapore. On 26th October, 1961, the Tunku said in the Federal Parliament debate on merger - I quote here, Sir, from the Straits Times of 17th October:

'All the states in Malaysia would enjoy equal rights and equal status. But because of the special position of Singapore as a City state, to my mind, it would be best if Singapore came in on a partnership basis.'

And when elaborating on what he meant by Malaysia, the Tunku said:

'What I have in mind is to call such an association or Federation of states the Federation of Malaysia, that is, all the Federation of Malaya states, the Borneo territories and Singapore, in which the states of Borneo territories and the states of the Federation of Malaya join in together as Federation of Malaysia and Singapore is joined in partnership -'

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: It is a point of order, Sir. Could the Member finish the sentence? It is important, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: "in partnership" - I will just follow from there, Sir.

'... on a footing something like that which exists between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.'

Sir, from all indications so far, we can say that this partnership is going to be a very unequal partnership. The Federation of Malaya wants to take the Borneo territories as the 12th, 13th, and 14th States of the Federation. But Singapore will not form the extra 15th or 12th if you like, State of the Federation. Singapore will only go in as a partner, In other words, the Borneo territories will truly be integrated with the Federation of Malaya to form the Federation of Malaysia. But Singapore will be kept away. Why?

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): Too many Communists.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Why have we to be segregated instead? Has the Member for Geylang Serai small-pox, or have all the people of Singapore smallpox? Are we going in as an equal constituent unit of the Federation? No. Are we having a merger of the peoples? No. And are we, under the so-called socialists on the other side, Sir, expediting the progress of socialism in Malaya? Again, no. Yet, all along, the P.A.P. has been saying that the present constitutional arrangement is merger. In fact, the Federation may be likened to a man getting ready to take on a first, a second and a third wife. These three wives are the three States in the Borneo territories. All the children, that is, the citizens, are legitimate children with equal rights to the family estate and to the use of family property, namely, Federation citizenship. But Singapore is going to be taken in not as a fourth wife but only as a mistress, and all the children of this mistress are going to be treated as illegitimate children with no rights to the family estate or to the use of family property, that is Federation citizenship. Poor Singapore citizens! They are all going to be treated like bastards, illegitimate children with no Federal citizenship rights.

The Acting Prime Minister in his letter to the Opposition Leaders on 6-9-61 says - I will quote, Sir.

This is the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to me as Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis. The relevant words are here, Sir:

'The only difference between Singapore and any one of the other States in the Federation is that there will be more powers reserved to the Singapore State Government.'

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is correct.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Is this true, Sir?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is correct. These are the heads of agreement.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No. Is Singapore, just like Johore or Selangor, really a part of the Federation? No. Can a person from Singapore stand for election in Kuala Lumpur for example, just like a person from Ipoh or Seremban? No. Is there complete freedom of travel between Singapore and the Federation just as amongst other States in the Federation? Again no. Then why did the Acting Prime Minister deliberately mislead us? Why the deliberate misrepresentation? Why this game of bluff? Dr Toh says -

Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes, Sir. He has just quoted me from a letter and the relevant portion has been read out. Now, he has used that little paragraph to misconstrue what I said in there, and that I intended to mislead him. I think there is provision under the Standing Orders that no imputation should be made against a Member.

Mr Speaker: I cannot see any imputation up to this stage. But if the point is that other parts of the letter would throw a little more light on the subject, then I think the Member for Queenstown should read the whole letter. Perhaps he should read the whole letter and we will see whether there will be any more light shed on the topic.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If you would like me to read the whole letter. I could. Sir, but I do not think -

Mr Speaker: Please do.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Here is the letter from the Acting Prime Minister, Singapore, dated 6th September, 1961, addressed to Dr Lee Siew Choh, Chairman, Barisan Sosialis. Singapore. 'Dear Dr Lee, I have received replies to my letter of the 26th August from leaders of the four political Parties represented in the Legislative Assembly. I enclose herewith copies of their replies for your reference. I must point out that my letter of the 26th August was prompted by the statements made in the Press by Opposition Party leaders, some asking for an All-Party conference in order that their views may he heard. If an All-Party conference is to he of value to assist and guide the Government in its deliberations on the constitutional arrangements for merger, there must be unanimity on the main points. It is clear from the replies that there is no agreement on the main points among the political Parties in the Opposition, although all are forced by circumstances and the pressure of public opinion to pay lip service to the principle of merger.

I had raised two points upon which I sought explicit clarification of the stand of cacti political Party. Do you agree that in the merger arrangements (1) Defence, External Affairs and Security come under the control of the Central Government? (Point considered basic by the Federation). (2) Singapore should retain autonomy on Education and Labour? (Point considered essential by the Singapore Government). In none of the replies is there any answer to these two points. All Parties have chosen to evade these two points.

The respective stands of the four political Parties in the Assembly are as follows:

(a) Barisan Sosialis stand for complete merger as a 12th State on the basis of Penang and Malacca.

Its second preference is for confederation between Singapore and the Federation and the three Borneo territories in which Defence and External Affairs excluding Security go to the Central Government. Security is to remain a subject for local autonomy.

(b) Alliance of S.P.A., U.M.N.O., M.C.A.. M.I.C gives no answer, but raises a query as to whether the arrangements amount to a merger or a confederation.

(c) United People's Party stand for complete merger as a State of the Federation.

(d) Workers' Party wholeheartedly believes in merger with the Federation and considers confederation a very valuable concept.

I must point out that complete merger means that both point (1) External Affairs and Security and point (2) Education and labour will all be under the control of the Central Government. Since most Opposition Party leaders in the Assembly propose complete merger as their first objective, if I get a categorical assurance from Opposition Political Parties that they will ask their followers to support complete merger, the Government is prepared to put forward complete merger as an alternative basis for negotiations between Singapore and the Federation.

The P.A.P. believes that it represents the wishes of the majority of people in Singapore in insisting that Education and Labour should he under local autonomy. However, we are prepared to follow the will of the people, if it is the majority wish that Education and Labour should also be under Central Government control.

May I point out that 42 out of the 51 Assemblymen today were elected in 1959 on a P.A.P. ticket. Of these 42, 16 have broken away - 13 now in the Barisan Sosialis and three in the United People's Party. All P.A.P. candidates who contested the 1959 general elections signed a pledge in April 1959 in which they categorically pledged to support the policy of merger between the Federation and Singapore as set out in the Central Executive Committee statement published in the 1958 Fourth Anniversary Souvenir number."

Then with quotations. Do I read all this also, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I think the point that the Leader of the House was making is that the quotation taken out of context might not indicate what is its real meaning. Perhaps if the hon. Member - I do not know whether this is another lengthy -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is a very lengthy quotation.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps if the hon. Member will come to the relevant passage from where his quotation came.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The only relevant part was the part I quoted, Sir. Well, this is more or less relevant. I will read this part - a small part will do.

'In order to clarify the position, may I briefly explain [this is Dr Toh's letter] that the arrangements between Singapore and the Federation are those of a merger as a State of the Federation. They do not constitute a confederation. A confederation is an association of independent States and no citizens of a constituent State vote for representatives direct to the central confederation government.

Our arrangements amount to merger because the people of Singapore will be voting representatives direct into the Federal Parliament. The only difference [these are the words I used, Sir] between Singapore and any one of the other States in the Federation is that there will be more powers reserved to the Singapore State Government.'

That is good enough already, Sir.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is quite correct, is it not?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Correct? I do not have to read some more.

Having heard all that, Sir, when We all know the present state is entirely different from what the Deputy Prime Minister has been trying to make us believe, can we ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he thinks he can fool the people all the time?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I do not want to fool anybody.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Under those circumstances, Sir, are we not justified in calling the Deputy Prime Minister - I would like to use the word, Sir, but -

An hon. Member: Do not use it!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - a liar. That is the word, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown must not be deliberately unparliamentary and then hope that the Speaker will just ask him to withdraw that word and not take any further action. I will not allow any deliberate use of any unparliamentary word. That is a deliberate use of an unparliamentary word and an attempt has been made to disguise it. I will not countenance any such attempt in future.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I apologise, Sir, and I withdraw that word.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Federation Government can justly boast of a proud record in its fight against the apartheid policy in South Africa.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And the Tunku has stood out prominently in this noble endeavour to restore the dignity and self-respect of the black man in South Africa. We earnestly hope that the Tunku above all others will not impose on Singapore a constitutional setup that smacks heavily of apartheid. We have already warned that the P.A.P.'s so-called "merger" proposals, if bulldozed through, will provide fertile grounds for communal politicians to thrive upon. It may lead to a disastrous disruption of the harmony and unity of our people. We have repeatedly appealed to all those who sincerely believe in harmony amongst our people to carefully ponder over this. Let all decent people realise the extremely dangerous situation that desperate politicians in the P.A.P. are bringing upon our people in their attempt to salvage their own political future.

Sir, before I go on to discuss representation in the Federal Parliament, let me touch briefly on the relationship between Northern Ireland and the U.K. As I have just quoted a little while back, there is this proposal that Singapore should join the Federation in more or less the same partnership as Northern Ireland did with Great Britain. Sir, a brief review of Irish history is essential in our understanding of the problem. Let us hope we may learn a lesson from the history of Ireland. Let the history of the Irish struggle first for home rule and later for independence be a lesson to the rulers of one State who try to impose their will upon another. For this was exactly what happened between England and Ireland in 1801 when Ireland was incorporated into the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. The arguments given by British apologetics in favour of this union were significantly economic. Ireland, they said, would be ensured the happiness, prosperity and welfare which prevailed in England. What more could she desire when she was united to one of the most progressive, prosperous and enlightened countries in the whole world? But the manner in which this was achieved was characteristically undemocratic. The vote was bought by open bribery of those who had the right to vote. In Singapore, we are seeing the same thing happening.

An hon. Member: Open bribery.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. is receiving, in return for the betrayal of the people, the protection of the Federation Government.

Later historians revealed that the real objective behind the union in 1801 was England's desire to protect her flank from the threat of invasion. Nevertheless, it was easy enough for the Englishman to be taken in by this myth, and it was not until one century later that the Irish finally forced a truce on England and freed themselves from this yoke. The Irish national struggle was long, bitter and costly. Throughout the 19th century, the Irish leaders confined themselves to manoeuvres within the English Parliament hoping to achieve their objectives of the repeal of the union by this way. These Irish Members of Parliament first allied themselves with the Whigs and then with the Liberals in the House of Commons who in the last analysis proved weak and unreliable. But what was worse was that this policy only increased English political activities in Ireland, and the English policies cost Ireland dear. It made the partition between Ulster, that is Northern Ireland today, and the Irish Free State possible. When the Irish at last realised the incapacity of the English Parliament to solve the Irish question, they began to organise themselves for a final showdown with England. The name of their new organisation - I do not know how it is pronounced - Sinn Fein was significant. It means, I am told, "We ourselves" [Interruption]. The spelling of Sinn Fein is S-i-n-n F-e-i-n. They were determined to achieve independence through their own efforts. During the First World War, the Irish Parliamentary Group accepted the postponement of home rule as inevitable. The Sinn Fein Group seized the opportunity when England was at war to stage a rising. Though their rising failed and there were mass arrests and executions of the Sinn Fein leaders by the British Government, it only helped to bring them more supporters. In the 1918 General Election held immediately after the war, Sinn Fein scored a resounding victory. Thereupon they proclaimed to the world independence for Ireland. England tried suppression by force, and guerilla war in Ireland broke out.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest that the Member for Queenstown come down to what we are really interested in - that is, the constitutional arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? All this historical reference might perhaps encourage that same thing in Singapore - I do not know. Let us try not to encourage that sort of thing in Singapore.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am not going to touch on the constitutional arrangements, Sir. I merely want to bring up one point, that the history of this Irish struggle should provide a very good lesson to Singapore and the bankrupt politicians.

An hon. Member: What lesson?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They should learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes and blunders that have taken place in other parts of the world. If we want to take anything as an example, we must bring up the best and not follow the worst.

The difference between the social and political conditions in Singapore and the Federation remind us strongly of the position of Ireland with regard to England. If the Government in the Federation have the same motive for merger as England had for the union, if they think they could coerce the people of Singapore into subjugation, it is well that they should learn the lesson from Irish history. Let no one attempt to impose a situation in Singapore that will lead to the permanent division of our peoples.

Mr Rajaratnam: Is there any more?

An hon. Member: About 15 pages more!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Now, Sir, let me come to discuss representation. I have here a copy of the Straits Times of Monday, 20th November, and I quote just one paragraph, Sir. This is a Press interview given by the Prime Minister:

'In a complete merger, Mr Lee said, 284,000 out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for citizenship under the present citizenship laws of the Federation. And they would send 14 representatives to the Central Parliament.'

Let us just do a bit of arithmetic, Sir,If 284,000 possible citizens can give us 14 representatives in this P.A.P.-type of phoney merger, then, in a complete merger in the position where every citizen of Singapore becomes a citizen of the Federation, when 624,000 Singapore citizens become 624,000 Federation citizens, simple arithmetic will give us 30 seats in the Federal Parliament. Therefore it is not 14.

However, Sir, let us now examine how the P.A.P. hopes to hoodwink the people of Singapore into accepting less -

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): On a point of order, Sir. Surely the Member for Queenstown, in making reference to 240,000 citizens of Singapore who would automatically become Federation citizens, is speaking of the Penang type of merger. He should therefore disclose the full facts and not try to say that the 624,000 Singapore citizens who would automatically become Federation citizens - according to the Barisan Sosialis pattern - would produce 30 seats.

Mr Speaker: I think the point of order is once again that the quotation from the paper is not quoted completely. Is that the point of order?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member for Queenstown then please read the whole quotation?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, it is one full page of it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Speaker would like to be caught again as he was with the letter. I think the Minister is entitled to the whole passage from which the quotation has come. The hon. Member should read the passage or a paragraph from which the quotation has come.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The whole paragraph, Sir?

Mr Speaker: May I have it?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes.

Copy of the Straits Times handed in.

Mr Speaker: In fairness to the House, not only should that paragraph be read but also the following two paragraphs.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The two paragraphs read as follows:

'Johore , with 291,000 citizens, was entitled to 14 seats.

Now, the remaining 340,000 present Singapore citizens, who were not horn in Singapore, would have to apply for citizenship under the present system in the Federation (which calls for eight years' residence out of 12 years plus knowledge of Malay and so on).'

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member complete that paragraph?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is actually a new paragraph, Sir, but I will read on:

'Statistically worked out, the proportion of those in the Federation who had obtained citizenship although not born there would come up to one-third, Mr Lee added.'

Now, can I proceed, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the point really is, if a quotation is to be made from a newspaper or from a book, then hon. Members must be careful that the quotation is not taken out of context and so bear a meaning which it would not bear if the whole of the context is read. I do not say that that has happened up to now, but it is only a precaution. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have always taken that precaution also, Sir.

Let us now examine how the P.A.P. hopes to hoodwink the people of Singapore into accepting less than proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. First, I wish to point out that with complete merger, when all 624,000 Singapore citizens will become 624,000 Federal citizens and therefore become entitled to the right of proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament, Singapore will have about one-quarter to one-third the total number of representatives in the present Federal Parliament. That is, Singapore will have between 25 and 30 - I worked it out to 30 a little while ago - representatives in a Federal Parliament of 100. If we work on the present number of 104, it will be slightly more. Under the P.A.P.'s type of merger, we will be getting only 15, that is, at least 10 less than what we are entitled to. Let us see how the P.A.P. tries to justify this sell-out of our people's democratic rights.

The first P.A.P. justification is the myth that large numbers of Singapore citizens do not have the necessary residential qualifications for Federal citizenship. I will quote the Straits Times of 27th October, Sir, (this is one full paragraph):

'The number of representatives Singapore citizens can vote for into the new Federation Parliament cannot exceed the number which Singapore would he entitled to if there were complete merger like Penang as in Proposal "A".'

That is the complete paragraph. In the same issue of the Straits Times, the Prime Minister also repeated the bluff that in complete merger only - if I quote from this newspaper, then the figure is slightly wrong; it was 323,000 and now they have changed it to 284,000; that is quite typical of the P.A.P. They give different figures at different times just to confuse the people. I will quote the relevant new figures. In only -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is quoting from a paper, he must quote from the paper, whether the figures are right or wrong, and then say how those figures are wrong in his estimation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It says here:

'... 323,000 Singapore citizens born in Singapore could automatically qualify in this way if we ask for complete merger like Penang.'

The 323,000 today would become 284,000. Those 327,000 (now the figure has become 340,000) who were not born here will have to apply for Federal citizenship. And, of course, the Prime Minister tried to put a fright into them by saying that only about 100,000 of these 327,000 (as the figure then quoted) would probably qualify. The figure today would be, Sir, 110,000 of the 340,000. These figures are very confusing, Sir, so let us leave the figures out for a little while. In other words, what the Prime Minister wanted to say, but did not say in so many words, was that the number of representatives Singapore will vote to the Federation Parliament, if they can really vote, under the phoney merger, would not be based op 624,000 Singapore citizens but will he based on 340,000 Singapore citizens born here, plus 110,000 whom he assumed would have the necessary qualifications for Federal citizenship, making a total of about 400,000. To put it in another way. Under the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, although all 624,000 Singapore citizens will become so-called Federal nationals, and who are all supposed to have equal rights with the Federation citizens, the number of representatives we will have in the Federal Parliament will not be calculated on the basis of these 624,000 nationals, but on the basis of 400,000 Singapore citizens who are considered by the Prime Minister to be fit to become Federal citizens. Calculated on this basis, Singapore would only have about two-thirds of the representation it should have got. And that is why the Prime Minister said in a Press interview on the 19th that Singapore should get about 19 seats - two-thirds of 30. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, all this sounds very complicated, but this is exactly the situation posed by the P.A.P.'s phoney merger. Utter confusion - all deliberately built up by skilful and cunning misrepresentation on the part of the P.A.P., to bamboozle and befuddle the people into accepting their sell-out. So much so that unless you read carefully in between the lines of the statements made by this smart alec - you will be completely taken in by them. Even the Straits Times of 20th November, 1961 says 284,000 will get automatic citizenship. This is a very clever and double-twisting way of argument. On the one hand, they cook up a myth that only 400,000 out of Singapore's 624,000 citizens would get Federal citizenship on complete merger. By this they hope to frighten and dissuade our people from demanding a complete merger. On the other hand, they apply this same myth to their phoney merger to justify their non-proportionate representation. This is a very clever double use of a myth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I really regret that such evident ingenuity, that such evident, mental acrobatics of the P.A.P. could not have been put to better use for the service of our people. But this is not the end of the story. The P.A.P. has yet another justification for cutting down Singapore's meagre representation even further. Let me quote the Prime Minister again as reported in the Straits Times of 27th October, 1961 (I will quote one full paragraph, Sir):

'The fact, that unlike the other States in the new Federation, Singapore will keep a considerable proportion of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities in education, labour and several other subjects of local autonomy, must also be considered in deciding on the number of representatives for the new Federation Parliament.'

In other words, the P.A.P. is using the phoney autonomy over labour and education as another excuse to cut down even further our already meagre representation in the Federal Parliament. And we say, "phoney autonomy", because autonomy over any matter is completely meaningless when internal security is in the hands of a government completely unsympathetic to our policies on these matters. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the P.A.P. are trying to make believe that because they are preserving autonomy over labour and education, we must therefore have less than proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. In fact, we know it is the other way round. The fact is that the Federation Government is prepared to take in Singapore today only if our political influence is kept to the minimum possible. That is, only if we are politically isolated and without proportionate representation, it is to make this lack of proportionate representation look acceptable to us that the Federation Government is giving us as sops this apparent autonomy over labour and education. The Federation is only interested in the control of our internal security. From the tone of the recent debate on merger in the Federal Parliament, it is clear to all that the Federation Government just cannot he bothered with the internal administrative problem of Singapore other than that of internal security. So the P.A.P. has to try to cover up this humiliating situation with all sorts of evil tricks and subterfuges. But from the issue of representation in the Federal Parliament, we discover how the Prime Minister has tried to give the people of Singapore three types of citizenship rights, thereby creating, in fact but not in name, three classes of citizens. First, the first-class citizen with first-class citizenship rights is the Federal citizen. He has voting rights in the Federation and he can stand as a candidate for election in any part of the Federation. Of course, he can elect representatives to the Federal Parliament. To this group of first-class citizens belong all the existing Federal citizens in the country.

Second, the second-class citizen with second-class citizenship rights is the Singapore citizen who was born in Singapore. He has voting rights in Singapore only. He can also stand as a candidate for election in any part of Singapore. Theoretically, he is considered to have the qualifications to be registered as a Federal citizen. And because of this he would be entitled to have representation in the Federal Parliament. This group of second-class citizens numbers 284,000. That is slightly less than half the present number of citizens of Singapore. That is how the Prime Minister worked out the 14 representatives.

I come to the third-class. The third class of citizens with third-class citizenship rights is the Singapore citizen who was not born in Singapore. He is the Singapore citizen who was born in the Federation, India, China, the United Kingdom and the Colonies. He has voting rights confined to Singapore only. He can stand as a candidate for election in any part of Singapore. But - and this is very important, Sir - he would not be considered to have the qualifications to be registered as a Federal citizen. And because of this, he would not be entitled to representation in the Federal Parliament. This group of third-class, citizens numbers 340,000 - more than half' the number of citizens in Singapore. I wonder if the Prime Minister can see what he is doing. Is he so blind that he: does not see that this will lead to a lot of unhappiness?

The P.A.P. has said: Merger means merger of peoples. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if this is the merger of the peoples. How does division of the peoples into different classes of citizens, with different classes of citizenship rights, lead to national unity? Will not this segregation and isolation of the people of Singapore from the people of the Federation lead instead to a further widening of the differences that exist? How can we say in the P.A.P. brand of Tipu orang merger that Singapore will form an integrated part of the new Federation?

The Deputy Prime Minister said that "our arrangements amount to merger because the people of Singapore will be voting representatives direct into the Federal Parliament." I would like to ask him once more. Does he think he can fool the people all the time? Sir, this is not merger. I think you also will probably agree with us that it is only a phoney and a sell-out. It is not -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I had better make it quite clear that the Speaker should not be drawn into this controversy.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I would not like to involve the Chair, Sir. But anybody in his senses listening to this will have to agree with us that it is a phoney and a sell-out.

An hon. Member: Nonsense!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is not a thing a socialist will want. It is not the deed of a man who professes to go towards the goal of an egalitarian society. It is not a deed of a true Malayan patriot. No, Sir. It is a deed of a traitor to the people. It is a pity that the Prime Minister is not here. I would like to urge him once more - turn back while there is still time. Let him turn back before the curse of all' true Malayans, the curse of their children and their children's children, be on him.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: He is not worried!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, knowing that this humbug merger will not get the support of the people, the Prime Minister has taken great pains to explain that the various sectional interests are looked after. But all these sectional interests which are listed in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech are things we already enjoy at present. The Chinese parents and the Chinese-educated, the workers, the businessmen, contractors and bus companies, merchants, a whole lot of them.

Mr Byrne: What about the English-educated?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All are enjoying whatever rights they now have. They do not have to have merger before they can have these rights. Neither will they lose these rights if there is no merger. If the Prime Minister wants to tell the people that he is concerned about their welfare, then merely safeguarding their interests will not be enough, because under any circumstances their interests must be safeguarded and preserved. But the Prime Minister should exert himself a little more and ask - how are all these interests and rights promoted, expanded and advanced with merger? Since he has forgotten this highly important aspect, let us try and help him with some questions. Such as, what can the civil service gain with merger? That is what we would like to know. For example, can the civil servants get more opportunities for promotion in a wider service under the same terms now existing or on improved and better terms? Will the terms and conditions of service be improved and bettered? Will promotion be accelerated? Sir, the past derogatory attitude of the P.A.P. leadership towards the civil service is well known. In 1959, during the first session, soon after the arbitrary imposition of pay cuts, the Prime Minister said this - volume 11, No. 6, column 368:

'I say to the Civil Service and their present rather inept leaders who have begun what they believe to be a revolutionary movement against the Government, that lf nothing else more catastrophic happens to them than the loss of allowances in the top brackets of the Civil Service, and the fact that they have to face fiercer competition from the non-English educated members of the service, then they should go down on their bended knees and thank the Gods that their souls have been spared.'

Now, hoping to pacify the civil servants and hoping to buy their votes, the discredited leadership of the P.A.P. restored the pay cuts.

Mr Speaker: Order. I just want to avoid the danger of our entering into a debate on the restoration of the pay cuts on this particular motion. The restoration of pay cuts, I take it, will be debated at length during the Committee of Supply or on some other occasion. But let us not enter into a debate on the restoration of pay cuts on these motions.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I only want to mention that the P.A.P. makes this restoration of pay cuts a condition. They link it up with their phoney merger proposals, Sir, because they say:

'with merger now in prospect it is possible to relax many of the stringent measures adopted.'

I think this is sheer hypocrisy.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown has been straying on the border line for some time on unparliamentary words. But I have always disallowed the word "hypocrisy" if used in relation to a Member of this Assembly. Therefore, I think the hon. Member should withdraw the word.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I withdraw that word, Sir. Very dishonest behaviour, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown is still forgetting himself. I do not think he should, in this context anyway, use the words "very dishonest behaviour".

Dr Lee Siew Choh: A very bad excuse, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. All I want is a withdrawal of unparliamentary words, and I do not think I should allow even a substitution at this stage.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I withdraw, Sir. I would ask them: Why do they not just speak the truth and shame the devil, because what has this restoration of pay cuts to do with merger anyway? Surely they do not hope that they may fool the civil servants all the time? At the present moment, what I would like to ask is this: Who is going down on bended knees and who is thanking the Gods that their souls have been spared?

The Prime Minister also says that the businessmen, contractors and bus companies want a merger under conditions in which priority for tenders and licences will be as before. Of course -

Mr Speaker: That appears to be a quotation from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. If that is so, then I do not think the Member for Queenstown is entitled to say that the Prime Minister says that. It is the policy speech of the Government as a whole.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which was delivered on behalf of the Government, Sir. Does the Government then suppose that these sectional interests will expect less? That should be the minimum demand. But they will ask the Government, and the Prime Minister specially, what additional benefits will they get with merger? Will they get the same opportunities for business in the Federation as in Singapore? Will the bus companies be allowed to operate freely on new routes in the Federation? And if allowed, will Singapore bus companies be treated equally as others and provided with equal facilities? So you see, Sir, by merely saying that certain rights will be safeguarded is not of much use, because these rights are rights we already have. What we want are more rights, more facilities, and equality with merger. Otherwise, how can merger be of benefit to the people of Singapore? I think the Prime Minister will have to try another line if he wants to fish for support for his so-called merger proposals.

The Prime Minister has also once said that no one is going to lose his citizenship; no one is going to lose any of the rights he has got. 'To that again I say: "of course." Is there anything he can boast of and crow about? For the greater majority, the P.A.P. proposal is the end of the road for more rights. They will forever remain third-class citizens. But the Prime Minister added, "Everyone will be getting something more." How nice. But let us ask him what this "something more" is. I have publicly posed many questions to the P.A.P. before on citizenship as well as on other issues, but have not received any reply from them so far. I wish to pose these questions again in this Assembly and let us hope they will have the guts to answer them this time. Let them answer these questions in clear-cut categorical terms and not in a flood of meaningless verbal diarrhoea.

1. Will Singapore citizens be able to apply for jobs direct into the Federation Government services like other citizens from the Federation, or will they be discriminated against just because they are not Federal citizens?

2. Will the products of Singapore schools and universities be treated on the same footing as their Federation counterparts when they apply for jobs in the Federation?

3. Will Singapore citizens be able to move freely or enter or leave the Federation freely without any restriction?

4. Will Singapore citizens have full freedom of speech and expression in the Federation?

5. Will students from Singapore schools and universities, particularly Nanyang University, have the right to travel freely in the Federation, inter-mingle with the Federation students, and participate in the student movements in the Federation, without discrimination if they are not Federal citizens?

6. Will the workers of Singapore be able to apply for jobs in the Federation on an equal footing with Federal citizens?

7. Will the workers of Singapore be allowed to join the trade unions in the Federation?

8. Will the workers of Singapore and the Federation be allowed to form pan Malayan trade unions so that they can unite and strengthen their organisation in their struggle to improve their livelihood?

9. Will the businessmen in Singapore have equal rights and opportunities as Federation businessmen if they choose to do their business in the Federation?

10. Will their lack of Federation citizenship be a discriminating factor if they apply for business licences, etc.?

Let the Government answer all these questions. Let the truth be out. Let us not try to cover up all the ugly facts. Let there be no more bluff. Let the people know all there is to know. They have the right to know the truth. In spite of all their unprincipled propaganda over Radio Singapore, using civil servants as mouthpieces, let the Prime Minister tell the people how this special type of sell-out merger is good for Singapore?

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes. The Member for Queenstown has just now alleged that civil servants have been improperly used, or are themselves improperly engaged in political activities. Is it in order to make implications against members of the civil service who are not here to defend themselves?

Mr Speaker: As far as the point of order is concerned, all I think this Assembly is concerned with is to see that any Member does not say anything which is, in fact, untrue or which in fact cannot be substantiated. And if the allegation made by the Member for Queenstown is correct, then, of course, he is entitled to say what he did say, and the Minister for Finance, when his opportunity arrives, can defend the civil servant, as it is his duty to do so, of course, as Minister in charge of Establishment.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It seems the Minister for Finance has -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already ruled.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I bow to your decision, Sir. Let us now examine the P.A.P.'s so-called merger proposals in yet another way. Let us examine them in terms of the desirable objectives which merger with the Federation is to achieve. The desirable objectives fall into three major groups, which may be represented by the following three slogans:-

1. Economic prosperity through merger.

2. National unity through merger.

3. Independence through merger.

Let us first take Economic Prosperity through Merger. Merger by itself has little or nothing to contribute, to the prosperity of Singapore. Merger does not by itself mean that there will be bigger markets for Singapore manufactures, nor does it mean that the customs barrier at Johore Bahru would be taken off on Merger Day. After merger, the position of Singapore would be similar to that of Penang - politically a part of the Federation, but economically outside the Federation's tariff walls. Therefore, at best, merger would make a common commodity market possible. But this is largely a theoretical possibility. A common commodity market which opens the Federation market to Singapore would have in some cases to be at the expense of the economic development of the Federation. Even the Minister for Finance of Singapore once believed, as I am told, that if Singapore is to achieve a common commodity market with the Federation, Singapore must be in a position to twist the Federation's arm. I am sure the Minister could confirm this. It is this capacity, Sir, to twist the Federation's arm, that would be lost when there is a merger without proportionate representation. With proportionate representation, Singapore would be in a position of strength comparatively in the Federal Parliament, and whosoever forms the Government would have to make reasonable concessions to safeguard Singapore's interests. It is an established fact that political representation is the key to economic progress. Our fight, Sir, against colonialism was not purely to have local men driving State-owned air-conditioned cars, or for the beauty of a new State Flag. It stems from an age-old maxim - no taxation without representation. That is, economic interests cannot be safeguarded without political rights. Anybody who has made a study of Government expenditure should know that Government in spending money tends to conciliate pressure groups. We have only just had a demonstration of it by the P.A.P. When they thought that the English-educated were of no consequence, as I have already a little while quoted, they cut their salaries without even attempting to go through the motions of negotiation.

Mr David Marshall: .Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Then when they lost the Chinese-educated and the working class support, they gave back all' the salaries. Everyone knows that the restoration of the pay cuts was not because of the merger arrangements, as the P.A.P. would like us to believe. It was purely and simply a blatant attempt by the P.A.P. to buy the votes of the civil service. The whole quotation -

Mr Speaker: Order. Here again, I must point out that there is repetition. Almost the same words are being used, and I would suggest to the Member for Queenstown that he should try and avoid that sort of repetition.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is only in passing, Sir,I am not labouring on it at all. I just want to mention the fact that this whole operation has a moral, that we can only disregard at our peril. If we do not negotiate and get proportionate representation in the Federation Parliament, and if we do not negotiate and get reasonable and legitimate rights to common citizenship, then economic prosperity would be as hollow a promise as all other P.A.P. promises.

Sir, there has been a concerted effort to present merger as the key to Singapore's economic problems, but the solutions to economic problems do not depend on markets alone. Markets are important, and these would depend on political concessions that could be got from the Federation by a common commodity market arrangement which the Minister for Finance says is not immediately possible. Economic solutions to Singapore's problem would also depend, Sir - even if we had the common commodity market - on the economic policy of the Government and the expenditure of money in pursuance of this policy. This, Sir, I have learnt from people who should know. The economic prosperity of Singapore is thus dependent on political considerations, and we have no right to pretend that merger per se is the solution. Merger by itself will not solve the unemployment problem also in Singapore. In the first place, unemployment problems are also present in the Federation. The increasing poverty resulting from the exploitation in the kampongs has driven more and more peasants into the town, thus swelling the number in unemployment. A large number of the unemployed in the Federation have been coming to Singapore looking for jobs. In spite of all the propaganda of the flight of capital from Singapore to the Federation, the net inflow of people from the Federation to Singapore in 1959 was about 8,000. In fact, the merger proposals of the P.A.P. would weaken Singapore's economic position. It would place the livelihood of our people at the will and pleasure of Federation politicians over whom the people of Singapore will not have an appropriate influence. It is therefore a matter which merits the most thoughtful consideration of all the people. The business community especially would do well to realise that the demand for citizenship rights and proportionate representation is not a bid for political power or an attempt to build Singapore as a base for the Communists. It is indeed, Sir, a matter of safeguarding the livelihood of the people of Singapore. The politicians who gaily talk about merger which is a surrender of legitimate political rights are the ones who are jeopardising the livelihood of the people. Their narrow, selfish interests of retaining political power, the vindictive desire to fix their political opponents, have blinded them to the consequences of their acts. They have Economic Ph.Ds, and highly paid experts, and yet in their singleminded desire to destroy their political opponents, they would destroy the livelihood of the people. It is the cynical nihilism of these arrogant men who would destroy the people of Singapore if they cannot lord over them. They are arrogant and cynical enough to believe that they can persuade the people of Singapore, by the use of all the means of propaganda at their disposal', to agree to this scheme of destruction. As I have said, Sir, they even use civil servants on this. They, in their cynical arrogance, think that the people can be beguiled into accepting their destruction by branding all opposition to their mad scheme as Communist-inspired.

Sir, there is a large mass of literature on the problems of Federal economic and fiscal policy; literature on the needs for constitutional checks and balances in order to prevent the destruction of the legitimate interests of component States; literature on the necessity of political safeguards and the paramount significance of proportional representation. Is this all Communist-inspired? Or has the desperation of arrogant men faced with political oblivion gone so far as to blind themselves completely? We of the Barisan Sosialis have said over and over again that the problems of merger are matters of national importance and merit united action if we are to achieve what is best in the interests of the people of Singapore and the Federation. We have said over and over again, "Do not betray the people's interests by making it a party issue. Let us safeguard the interests of the people by thrashing out our differences. But the interests of the people must come first."

Sir, this phoney merger is not - I repeat not - intended to solve the economic problems of Singapore, and we know this from the Tunku himself. Let me quote him from the Straits Times of 18th November. This is a report of his interview in London:

'He [that is, the Tunku] considered that merger of Singapore and Federation would benefit both territories to a small extent economically, but far more important was the benefit it would bring to the whole area politically.'

Earlier, the Tunku explained what he meant by "political benefits", and it is in the same report here. I will quote again:

'By merging with Singapore, the Federation would take on more than it wanted, but he felt this was necessary if it was not to have a Communist or pro-Communist government in power in its neighbouring territory.'

Sir, the primary motive of this phoney merger is not to benefit us economically but to fight Communism. In other words, Sir, the purpose of this phoney merger is not a positive one but simply a negative one - that of anti-Communism.

The P.A.P. stated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech at column 12 of Hansard dated 31st October, 1961:

'With merger now in prospect, the assumptions on which the original economic policies of the Government were based must be reviewed. As part of a greater entity, Singapore can stand up better to its economic difficulties than by tackling them in isolation. Hence it was possible to relax many of the measures adopted.'

Sir, the P.A.P. is trying to deceive the people of Singapore that after the P.A.P. type of merger the coffers of Singapore will be filled with money from the Federation and that our revenue will be increased. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, after this phoney merger, at least one-quarter of Singapore's present revenue will go to the Federation. That we have learnt from the Prime Minister.

Now let me proceed with the second objective: national unity through merger. The P.A.P.'s proposal claims to give different educational rights to the Chinese living in Singapore from those available to those living across the Causeway. We are to have a system of education that would isolate the people of Singapore from those in the Federation, and in addition to the existing cleavage among the different communities, we are to create new cleavages through different educational rights. The effect of this would be that unless we ban the entry of young Chinese from the Federation or deny them the right of entry to our schools, there would be wholesale movement of youth from the Federation to Singapore to study and to take examinations that would be held in the Chinese language. What is to happen to these youths after taking the examinations in Singapore? Their certificates would have no value in the Federation, and they would have to stick in Singapore in order to get jobs. The number of unemployed in Singapore will thereby increase and not decrease under the P.A.P. type of merger. Singapore with its dispossessed youths from the Federation would become the centre of agitation for Chinese educational rights in the Federation. In the Federation the special rights available in Singapore would become cause and justification for agitation. Sooner or later all this agitation would be labelled Communist, like all the strikes not involving the P.A.P.-sponsored unions so far, and the dragon teeth of unrest and repression sown by the P.A.P. would produce widespread grievances and dissension. Surely this is not the way to national unity. It is a path leading not to national unity but to national disunity and civil war.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is a path on which other sidepaths arising from discontent over restricted political rights and limited representation would converge. It is a path that every man, however desperate, must avoid. It is a path that the desperate men of the P.A.P. must, if they have any decency left in them, not create. If they do, generation after generation of their survivors shall curse them for their part in the holocaust that was brought on the people of the country. The present arrangement is no solution to the problems of Chinese education. If there is to be one, it would have to be hammered out in the Federal Parliament. And the solution which would contribute to political harmony and national unity must apply to the whole of Malaya. In hammering out the solution, Singapore must have its say, a say that can only be assured if there is proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. As the proposal now stands, it is not a contribution to national unity, but a contribution to national disunity and disaster.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let us also examine whether this different educational policy is a good one. If we, for a moment, disregard national interests and consider this only in terms of the interests of the people in Singapore. I have already indicated the dangers that would be posed to the employment market and the educational system if youths from the Federation came to Singapore and acquired qualifications that have no meaning outside Singapore. In addition to this, Chinese schools would become centres of agitation against the educational system in the rest of the Federation, and they would be harassed as centres of Communist and pro-Communist activity. The causes and the legitimate grievances would be forgotten and only the effects would remain. How would this bring happiness to the people? If the people of Singapore truly have autonomy over education, then the educational policy must he based on the aspiration of the people. We, in Singapore, are predominantly socialist in outlook. If the people's aspirations were met, the products of the schools and universities in Singapore would be more progressive in their political outlook than what the present Federation Government would allow. Do you think that the internal security boys under the control of the present Federation Government would remain idle over this? From what has been said by those in authority in the Federation in the recent Parliament debate, the likelihood is that the products of Singapore's schools and universities will be crowding the gaols in Changi and Batu Gajah if the P.A.P.'s sell-out is pushed through.

The autonomy in education then, which is being offered as a great achievement of the intelligence and realism of the P.A.P. leaders, would be crushed between agitation and internal security, in the final analysis, autonomy in Chinese education would vanish almost as soon as it was given.

The statements of the Prime Minister, too, have been very contradictory in his advocating local autonomy for education. The Prime Minister has said that local autonomy might go on for 30 to 50 years, in one of his Press interviews. By this, he means that there would not he complete unification of our country and our people for 30 to 50 years. Again, the Prime Minister has also advocated nation-building through unification of the education policy. And the merger proposals, according to the P.A.P., will lead to unification of our people. How does the Prime Minister reconcile this avowed policy of nation-building towards national unification on the one hand, and the maintenance of separate education policies in the Federation and in Singapore for as long as 30 to 50 years on the other? What sort of a double talk is this? Even here I see - I am reading from the text of a speech by the Deputy Speaker at the opening of the Labrador Primary School, Pasir Panjang, on 28th October - that he said, "With merger the children in the schools in Singapore will be the children of Malaya. We have one destination ahead of us." Where is the "one destination"?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: End of P.A.P.!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Nil. It is clear, therefore, that all this talk of autonomy on education and labour in the face of the avowed policy of nation-building towards the national unification not only deceives other people but the P.A.P. themselves as well. I wonder if the Back-benchers know this line of double talk of the Prime Minister. Such too, Sir, would be the fate of autonomy in labour.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown appears to be going on to a different subject. I think it may be convenient to suspend. Is it convenient?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Not exactly, Sir.

An hon. Member: He has not finished yet!

Mr Speaker: It is convenient to suspend. I suspend the Assembly. I will take this Chair again at half-past Five. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.57 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.