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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was saying, Sir, that all this talk of autonomy in education and labour in the face of the avowed policy of nation-building towards national unification, not only deceives other people, but the P.A.P. themselves as well. Such, too, would be the fate of autonomy in labour. I am not going in detail on that. I will leave it to my colleagues. The only guarantee for safeguarding the workers' rights is the existence of a strong, independent trade union movement. The workers have also seen their effective trade union leaders being imprisoned without trial both in Singapore and in the Federation, all in the name of security risks. The workers are by now politically matured. They know that the control of internal security by a Government that is unsympathetic to labour would make a mockery of any so-called autonomy in labour. The workers in Singapore cannot be bluffed by the P.A.P. Government any more. The P.A.P. Government is dangling these empty promises of autonomy over labour and education like carrots before the mule. But the people of Singapore are not mules. It is an insult to the people for the P.A.P. Government to think that they can be so easily duped. We have been asked to see the question of representation and these apparent concessions in the wrong order. The P.A.P. line is that, as a consequence of the need for autonomy in education and labour - something that they want us to believe they have wrested from the Federation Government with great difficulty - they have conceded, as a just price, limited political representation. Surely this is not the truth. In fact, it is the other way round. From the recent Federal Parliament debate on merger, it is quite evident that the Federation Government is only interested in obtaining control of the internal security of Singapore and keeping our political rights at the minimum. The truth is that in order to make limited political representation acceptable, they have offered as sops apparent autonomy in education and labour - apparent autonomy, because internal security would make mincemeat of it before you can say Jack Robinson. In fact, the Tunku has already said that all provisions will have to be transitional and temporary. I will quote, Sir, from the Straits Times, Friday, 17th November. The Tunku said:

'All provisions will have to be transitional and temporary until a workable constitution can be agreed upon and enshrined in a main constitution of the Federation.' We see, therefore, that the P.A.P.'s so-called autonomy on education and labour is a false autonomy and is not based on facts. Regarding Singapore's autonomy on education in relation to its clash with the Rahman-Talib Report, the Prime Minister of the Federation already said - and I quote, Sir; this is the Straits Times of 19th October; he was talking about the clash of the Rahman-Talib Report with the autonomy on education in Singapore. He said:

'But if it was found later that changes should be made then steps would be taken to do so.'

Sir, I have no doubt that the Federation would. So where is the autonomy? Can the Prime Minister, if he is here - or let his colleagues tell him - answer that? I have already shown that local autonomy on education, in its final analysis, would not lead to the relief of the economic problems and unemployment in Singapore. All economists know that only full industrial development and expansion can possibly do that. But full industrial expansion and development for Singapore would mean expansion and development in competition and possibly even in conflict with the industrial expansion and development of the Federation. This clash of economic policies will not be allowed by the Federation. The Minister for Finance of the Federation, Mr Tan Siew Sin, has said as much. I will quote, Sir, from the Straits Times of 17th October. Mr Tan Siew Sin said:

'The Central Government must have enough powers in reserve so that if any state Government should pursue a policy affecting the economic stability of the whole country he can cope with such policies effectively.'

So, how can Singapore have free industrial development to provide more opportunities of employment for the thousands and thousands of our present unemployed and for those coming out from our schools and universities year after year? No, Sir. The economy of Singapore will be hamstrung at every turn. It is even possible, Sir, for example, since they want to have pineapple canning factories in the Federation, such factories will be limited in scope or not even be allowed to operate in Singapore. How good will this autonomy be when the livelihood of all the people can be interfered with by the powers that be outside Singapore? How will the interests of the people be looked after?

The third objective that we seek to achieve through merger is independence. What does independence mean to the people? If it means anything at all, it means the increase of political freedom for the people. The struggle for independence is not a struggle to stop white men driving in Humber-Daimlers, Pullmans or Rolls-Royce, and have local men driving in air-conditioned Daimlers. Nor is the struggle for independence satisfied by the skill with which new flags are designed or by a new national anthem. Behind all this, there must be an increase in political freedom, and the use of that political freedom for improving the livelihood of the people. Independence cannot mean the restriction of political freedom. The overthrow of foreign rule in whatever form it may exist is only a means to achieve greater political freedom for the community and the individuals that form that community.

Sir, the P.A.P. has mistaken the means for the end. 'They think that the transfer of political hegemony from the British to the Federation is independence even if it would mean a decrease in the political rights of the people of Singapore. If we enjoy more political rights as a colony of the British and the P.A.P.'s proposals would lead to less political rights as a "partner" of the Federation, then it is not independence through merger. Partnership becomes only an euphemism, a word more acceptable than "colony".

At present Singapore enjoys very real autonomy in all internal matters and has equal say with Britain on matters of internal security. It is true that the British can take away our rights under the Constitution, but they can only do that by establishing a military government. As long as the peo ple support the Government, whatever the constitutional limitations, the power of the Government is very real. We have seen that being practised.

Under the P.A.P. proposals this hegemony would be transferred from the British to the Federation Government, and in addition the Federation Government would be able to interfere in Singapore, as the British would never be able to without revoking the Constitution. There is no need to go into details, but what is inescapable is that the Singapore Government would not be allowed to do anything that displeases the Federation Government. Singapore under such an arrangement would be like a fly stuck in glue. It will become an un-sexed part of the Federation. The Federal representation is to be such that Singapore's part in the Legislature is to be kept at the minimum and her participation in the Federation Government almost impossible.

The P.A.P. plan for independence through merger is such that we would give up whatever rights we have and accept a political status designed to keep our influence in national politics at the minimum possible. This is not the same thing, Sir, as taking our chances with the rest -of the people of the country. If the majority can be convinced that things should be run in a different way, then they should have the constitutional right to form a government that will carry out their desires. Is that not the democracy the Prime Minister expounded to us night after night over Radio Singapore sometime back? But it is not democracy when, by constitutional gerrymandering and verbal soothing syrup, the people of Singapore are to be cast-rated or caponised - sorry.

Mr Speaker: Even if the hon. Member for Queenstown has a prepared speech, he must see that those words are altered.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Caponised, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that word is any better that the other word which I have already ruled out.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will change the word to devirilised politically. This political de-virilisation cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be called a step towards independence. There is only one word, Sir, to describe this, and that is "sell-out". Yes, sell-out. The Prime Minister says that because we are going to have the so-called autonomy over 'this or that, the people of Singapore will be free after the phoney merger. But, Sir, let us remember that internal security, the key to -our freedom, will be in the hands of a Government over which we shall not have the appropriate influence. It is just like saying that the arms and legs are free when there is a noose around your neck. A noose held by the Federation. And who is going to apply this noose round the necks of the people of Singapore? Who indeed is the hangman of the people of Singapore? There is only one answer, Sir. The hangman is the Prime Minister of Singapore. The hangman of Singapore? The Prime Minister of Singapore.

Sir, let me summarise. The P.A.P. had at first said that automatic Federal citizenship was impossible. I have already shown that automatic Federal citizenship is possible. This has also been confirmed by the Tunku himself. The Prime Minister also said that the demand for automatic Federal citizenship and proportionate representation was unreasonable. That is still his line. I have shown that it is not only not unreasonable but also completely reasonable, fair and just. Then the Prime Minister used the lack of residential qualification and the Malay language test as arguments to justify his not wanting to fight for the democratic rights of equality and justice for the people of Singapore. I have similarly shown those arguments to be false and untenable. Then the P.A.P. line is that through merger Singapore will get economic prosperity, national unity and independence. I have also shown the hollowness of their arguments. Then the P.A.P. tries to appease sectional interests. I have similarly shown that the P.A.P. has not advanced the various sectional interests one wee bit. in fact, all the P.A.P. actions have been one long shameful record of treacherous betrayal of the basic interests of the people of Singapore. The Prime Minister knows only too well that ultimately he will be unmasked and be exposed. Hence, the diversion with the Communist bogey. He hopes thus to use this diversion to distract the attention of the people from the treacherous sell-out carried out under -the name of merger. Of course, the P.A.P. leaders do also hope that they will be able to cling on to power. When discredited politicians want to transmute a personal party crisis into a national one, then we are indeed at the crossroads. But the Government is in such a mess that it has got the main highway and the side path all mixed up, so engrossed are they in their hid for survival and in the play of party politics. The main highway is the highway of genuine unification of our country and our people. There will be peace, prosperity, freedom, equality, democracy and justice for all peoples irrespective of race, religion or creed. There will be no exploitation of man by man. Has the P.A.P. stepped on to this main highway? They call themselves a socialist party. What is socialist about it today? Where are all their socialist principles? The other path, Sir, is a side path that leads to a dead end. Yes, that is where the P.A.P. Government wants to lead us. They want to lead us to a dead end where there is no true unification of our country and our people. No democracy, no equality, no freedom and no justice, and where repressive action is exercised for the benefit of a privileged few. That is the road of an unequal partnership. That is a road that leads not to independence nor to constitutional advance for the people of Singapore. On the contrary, it is a road that leads to enslavement of the people of Singapore in another form. Instead of London that controls, it will now be Kuala Lumpur. Colonialism goes out through the front door and is re-admitted through the back door.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Where is the back? We have no back door.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will ask the P.A.P. leaders - as the local saying goes - to go back home, rest their heads high on their pillows and ponder over it. Turn back before it is too late. Get back to land, as another saying goes, instead of going further and further into the deep, deep sea. Turn back for the sake of the people. Let the P.A.P. leaders undo the mistakes they have made before they go down in the annals of history as the traitors of the people of Singapore.

Let me now wind up.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: He winds up with six pages!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is utterly dishonest to call the P.A.P. deal a merger. The plain and simple fact is that by the P.A.P. proposals the Federation Government would be free to interfere in all spheres of our lives, even though we are supposed to have local autonomy over labour and education. On the other hand, we shall not have the proportionate influence in the Federal legislature. We have stated in no uncertain terms that even though we desire a merger to come about, this does not mean that we agree with the policies of the present Government of the Federation. On the contrary, we have stated our differences with the Right-wing Government of the Federation.

Sir, why have the P.A.P. Government deliberately used the word "merger" when it is obvious that what is being proposed is far from anything that can be called merger, when it is something that is simply and plainly a sell-out? it is fraudulent practice to confuse the people by the repeated use of the word "merger". It is like trying to sell a faked commodity for the real one. It is bound to be found out.

Let us now look at the propaganda line of the Government. The Prime Minister and his troubled men have run up against numerous problems. They know that run one in Singapore is against merger. They know that we in the Barisan Sosialis are in favour of full unification of the two territories. Why then have they put out this falsehood that we are against merger? The answer, Sir, can clearly be seen in their anxiety to force their proposals on the people. When we expose their proposals and prove the whole scheme to be a sell-out, they hope to silence us by saying that we are against merger. And hoping to bulldoze the people into accepting those thoroughly dishonest proposals, they also have the Communist alarm raised. The people of Singapore are not frightened by the Communist bogey. In fact, too many people are sick to the bone of the absurdities that have come from the Prime Minister about the Communist menace. Everyone who is a serious threat to the Prime Minister becomes a Communist, a pro-Communist, a Communist sympathiser, and so on. We do not wish to waste our time listening to the Prime Minister's own nightmares. In fact, if he had a good night's rest every time, things would have been much better for all of us, particularly those who have not been completely bored by listening to Radio Singapore. But I wish to say that all this talk about Communism is, in the main, directed to London. Washington and Kuala Lumpur. By raising a scare about Communism, the Prime Minister hopes that he would force various foreign interests to bring the right pressure in the right places to assist him in his plans for a sell-out. The Tunku has revealed the true character of the Prime Minister by admitting that he' had been persuaded to accept merger after listening to the frightening stories of our tale-bearing Prime Minister. For one thing, I give the Prime Minister credit for having taken the Tunku for a jolly good ride.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): Do you think he is so foolish?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis made a policy statement on 28th August outlining in unequivocal terms our stand on the constitutional future. Let me quote parts of that statement. This is our stand on merger:

'Let us once again reiterate that we are fully in support of unity between the Federation and Singapore. We believe that separation is a result of colonial domination. We are unreservedly dedicated to the building of a Malayan nation and resolutely opposed to Chauvinism. We shall struggle for the unity of the peasants, workers and intellectuals of all races.

We support Malay as the national language and arc convinced that the Malayan nation will develop a great new cultural life common to all its people.

The way ahead for real unification for our country and our people is in one of two directions:

(a) an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State;

(b) as an autonomous unit within the Confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible.

On the first direction, we are fully aware of the difficulties that face us in our struggle for Malayan unity. As a result of colonial rule, the differences of race and religion have been emphasised and much work will be needed to repair the damage done by colonialism.

However, we declare that if the representatives of the people of the Federation are agreeable to do the same, we will pledge ourselves to wholeheartedly exert our influence to win the people of Singapore to accept full and complete merger forthwith, that is, with Singapore as the twelfth State of the Federation and Singapore citizens automatically becoming Malayan citizens with proportional representation in the Federal Parliament like any of the present eleven States constituting the Federation of Malaya.

We believe that this is a vital question that can only be decided by the people of Singapore and the Federation. In Singapore, we believe that the only genuine way of allowing the people to decide is by a general election during which we will be prepared to persuade our people to give us a mandate for a full and complete merger. Let the Government of the Federation of Malaya tell us if it is prepared to persuade the people of the Federation to accept the people of Singapore in a full and complete merger before 1963.

We fully realise that many of the policies of the present Right-wing Government in the Federation are unacceptable to us. The present Federation Government is in close alliance with a foreign country. It has bound the country to the so-called British/Malaya Mutual Defence Treaty and turned our motherland into a military base for the British armed forces. Its foreign policy has alienated our country from the mainstream of Afro-Asia, particularly Indonesia, Ghana and India. Its internal policies are -'.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just wondering whether this is an extract from a document, or is it part of the speech? It is so difficult now to follow the Member for Queenstown. I understood he was going to read extracts from a policy statement of his Party. If all these words during the last five minutes are extracts, then I think I have missed the meaning of the word "extracts". Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is an extract, Sir. Our policy statement was a very long one and I am only reading a very short part of it. I have only a few lines more to go, Sir.

I was saying:

'Its internal policies are repressive. Organisations and other civil liberties are curbed and its education policy is misguided.

Nevertheless, we are willing to accept these disabilities and join up with the Socialist forces in the Federation to build a great alliance with peasants, workers and intellectuals, to defeat by constitutional means the reactionary forces at the general elections.

Our Socialist comrades in the Federation have long been waging a determined struggle against the reactionary policies of the Federation Government. We will strengthen this struggle by joining hands with them.

We are prepared to accept merger under these conditions provided it occurs immediately and is followed by a Pan-Malayan general election.

We are confident that the people of the present two territories will effect by constitutional means a change in whatever reactionary policies of the Government.'

That, Sir, is the whole extract.

Sir, unlike others, we in the Barisan Sosialis mean what we say. Our stand on the unification of the two territories by complete merger has been taken not on account of technical reasons as our opponents have insinuated. They are, of course, entitled to believe what they want to believe and live in their own fear-ridden world. On this question of merger, may I finally quote from the speech of our Secretary-General made at the inaugural mass meeting of the Party

• Straits Times, Monday, 18th September:

'Mr Lim said that recently critics had described the party as "anti-merger" and as being prepared to accept merger only as an alternative.

"How can anyone who likes only half-boiled potatoes accuse those who like boiled potatoes of being people who do not like potatoes?" Mr Lim asked.

"We are serious and genuine in our stand for full and complete merger. If the Federation Government says tomorrow that it will accept us as an integral part of the Federation, we will only be too glad to support it whole-heartedly..."'.

We know now, Sir, that the Tunku does not want merger. He wants our country but not our people. He is not interested in the unity of our people. He is only interested in getting the powers to control the destiny of our people. And it is our duty. Sir, to warn that the desire to acquire more territory on one side, and the desire to sell out on the other, is only going to aggravate the present differences among our people. The Irish history should provide a good objective lesson. Merger cannot be achieved by politicians with a communal outlook or even by those who outwardly profess to be non-communal but willingly pander to communal views. We in the Barisan Sosialis maintain that there is no conflict of interests between the vast majority of the Chinese in Singapore and, for that matter, in Malaya, and the Malays in the Federation, for the majority of both communities are poor. The Malay rakyat and the Malay workers have nothing to fear from the workers in Singapore. The Chinese and the Indians in Singapore have demonstrated their loyalty to this country both in the anti-Japanese war and in the anti-colonial struggle. They owe their undivided loyalty to this country which they have now come to regard as their own. It is true that a few have ties with China and with India, just as some Malays have ties with Indonesia. But all ties in the last decade have grown thin and weak, while new ones to this land are being forged and further strengthened. But what is of more importance is that the vast majority of the Chinese in Singapore are poor. They are men who work and toil for a living. In Singapore the Chinese workers work together with Malay and Indian workers. They struggle together against the exploiting class of whatever race and for a better livelihood. They man the picket lines shoulder to shoulder. The recent strike by the Public Daily Rated Employees is an example of there being no basic conflict between the Malay workers, the Indian workers and the Chinese workers. To approach merger from a communal angle will not only lead us on the road to failure but also to chaos. For this approach brings in its train serious repercussions to communal harmony. This attitude of mind in itself precludes any solution to the problem of reunification.

Let me, on behalf of the Bansan Sosialis, crystallise our approach to the Constitutional question. Under the terms of our last constitutional agreement, we are obliged to return to London to reexamine the position in the light of our experience as to what and how our Constitution has succeeded. But in the meantime the questions of merger and Malaysia have been raised, it is evident that what is called merger-is not merger. It is sheer domination of Singapore by the Federation. We must, therefore, reject these proposals. But if it is possible for Singapore to join in a confederation of Malaysia as an autonomous unit, then we shall welcome this advance as a step towards complete merger. And if none of these ways are open to us, then we should in the discharge of our constitutional obligations go to London in 1963 when the demand should be -

Mr David Marshall: Independence.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - for full and complete internal self-government. In these circumstances it is our responsibility to bring about a greater measure of freedom for the people of Singapore and the movement should be for the minimum demand - let us emphasise - for the minimum demand for full and complete internal self-government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said at the beginning that we do not believe that the P.A.P. Government is at all sincere when it calls for merger. I have said that they are abusing the word "merger" for their selfish aims. They are using the word "merger" when they mean something else. Even the Tunku yesterday told us that the P.A.P.'s scheme is not merger. Let me quote him [Straits Times] 17th November:

'"It would be more correct to say it is a form of very close association," he said.'

Sir, let the P.A.P. Government prove its sincerity in its call for merger by voting for our amendment. Let them not try to give excuses for not wanting a genuine merger. Let them not just say, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that they are prepared to accept a genuine merger as an alternative and do nothing about it. We have stated in no uncertain terms that we are prepared to convince our people in a general election to accept a genuine merger.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If the P.A.P. is sincere in its desire for unity, let them join us in our efforts to convince the people. Let them not stand by at the ringside and merely wish us good luck. We implore them for the sake of our people not to maintain their opportunistic stand. If the P.A.P. votes against this amendment, then they stand exposed as opportunists, as double dealers, as men who are not sincere in what they say. They will be exposed as anti-merger, as anti-genuine reunification of our people. They will be exposed as power-mad people obsessed only with the aims of keeping themselves in power.

We all know why the P.A.P. is bringing about this phoney merger. It is because the P.A.P. leaders hope to use this phoney merger as a means to crush their political opponents. But let them remember this that in their attempts to crush their political opponents, they are also bringing degradation, disunity, and disaster to our people as well.

Sir, we are confident that the socialist movement will not be crushed by this P.A.P. scheme. The socialist forces in Malaya have survived far greater dangers than this. History has shown that no politician can maintain his power for long merely by constitutional manipulation and political repression. History has shown that what really matters is the support of the people. We in the Barisan Sosialis, Sir, are confident of the support of the people. We have repeatedly challenged the Government to a general election on this merger issue, and it is significant that they give all sorts of excuses just to avoid our challenge. Let me, Sir, urge the P.A.P. leaders once again not to place their own political survival above the interests of the people. The future of a few politicians does not really matter. Let us not forget that we have entered politics in order to help the people and not ourselves. Let them search their conscience. Let them be honest with themselves. Are they doing this really for the good of the people or for themselves? Let them remember that no matter what they do, the people shall one day pass judgment on them. As the Prime Minister himself has once said. "The verdict of the people is a terrible thing." Yes, Sir, the verdict of the people can be a terrible thing. But, Sir, it will be terrible only to those who refuse to remain faithful to the people.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Has the hon. Member copies of his amendment which may be distributed?

Copies of the amendment handed in to the Clerk and distributed to Members.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"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."

Since which an amendment has been moved to leave out from "a" in the second last line to the end and to insert -

"genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate may, and of necessity will, range over the other part of the amendment which seeks to insert the words. The debate now, of course, will be confined to the amendment. Dr Goh.

6.34 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the marathon performance of the Member for Queenstown to which we have just been subjected was frankly a disappointment to me. This was his first major speech in this House as a leader of his Party. One was entitled to expect a searching analysis of political trends with a profound and comprehensive review of the merger proposals agreed to with the two Governments. One hoped to hear from the Member for Queenstown some solid justification for the Barisan Sosialis plan for so-called complete merger. One also hoped to hear how he proposes to get automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens now that the Prime Minister of the Federation had already declared that the Federation Government was not prepared to agree to this. None of The things that we had expected came from the Member for Queenstown. Instead, Sir, we were treated to a dreary repetition of the old slogans trotted out by the Barisan Sosialis propaganda machine. In fairness to the Member for Queenstown, I will concede that, yesterday at any rate, what might have been a completely weary, boring and dispirited address was relieved by a few joyous moments of hilarity. For these small mercies, we are duly grateful.

In line with the Barisan Sosialis propaganda line, the Member for Queenstown keeps on repeating a number of set themes. The P.A.P. merger plan is a sell-out; it is phoney merger; Singapore citizens will be reduced to second-class status. As in previous Barisan Sosialis propaganda statements, not the slightest bit of relevant evidence has been produced in support. Who has been sold out? In what way is the merger phoney? How are Singapore citizens relegated to second-class status after merger compared to the Federation? All we got from the Member for Queenstown was a dreary repetition of these assertions.

No doubt by constantly asserting a statement, he hopes to induce some people to believe that it is true. Sellers of headache cures and toothpastes also use this technique. But on such a serious matter as our people's future, we want evidence in support of any assertion or allegation. It is not sufficient, Sir, to keep on repeating, like a worn-out gramophone record, that there has been a sell-out, a phoney merger, and that we will be reduced to second-class citizens.

Let me first deal with the subject of citizenship. The Barisan Sosialis say that Singapore citizens will be reduced to second-class citizens. But they do not explain how this is so. The Member for Queenstown stressed the importance of citizenship. No one will dispute it. He said, "Citizenship is intimately connected with every facet of our everyday life - in the way we live, work, eat, travel, learn, study, associate and so forth." This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I will let it pass. What is his criterion for evaluating the worth of citizenship? Obviously if you say one class of citizens is first-class and another second-class, you must have certain standards of judgment. What are they? The test which the Member himself applies is that the Singapore citizen should - and I quote him, "have the opportunity of sharing a common political life and destiny with his brothers across the Causeway". To do this, we should have the right to vote and stand for election to the same Parliament, for only then can we decide, and I quote him, "the extent of your freedom, the Government you want, the laws which you want and do not want, the type of working conditions you wish to have, the type of education which your children would have, the type of health facilities we would like, and so on and so forth."

Sir, let us apply his own standards to Singapore citizenship after merger. Will the Singapore citizens have the opportunity of sharing a common political life and destiny with his brothers across the Causeway? The answer is surely yes. He will vote for representatives into the same Federal Parliament. He can stand for election to the Federal Parliament and, if successful, share with his brothers across the Causeway authority in the supreme law-making authority in the country. Not one Singapore citizen would be deprived of this right.

What the Member for Queenstown and the Barisan Sosialis object to, and find deficient in the merger arrangement, is that the right to vote and the right to stand for election to the Federal Parliament can be exercised by Singapore citizens only in Singapore. Contrarywise, the present Federal citizens can exercise such rights in the Federation.

In what way can we be regarded as second-class? Both groups are treated alike, and receive identical treatment on a wide range of affairs of the State. In practice, the vast majority of citizens exercise their electoral rights at the place in which they are permanently resident. The ordinary Singapore citizen is not going to be highly excited nor does he lose anything, because he cannot, for instance, stand for election in Trengganu. If a Singapore candidate is of any worth he would have built a reputation for himself in this island and would have more chances of winning an election here, not in the Federation.

Why is the Barisan Sosialis making a song and dance about this comparatively trivial issue? The answer is not that there has been any breach of fundamental human right or any betrayal of Singapore citizens. The reason why they want to be able to stand for election in the Federation is best explained in one of the early public statements that their leaders made on the subject.

This was published in the Straits Times of 30th August and indeed has been quoted by the Member for Queenstown. But to refresh the memory and to make sure that Members of the House know what I am referring to, perhaps I may be permitted to re-read the statement.

They made it clear that they would accept merger only if there were general elections immediately after merger in the Federation and Singapore. They stated in practically so many words that their real objective in merger was the eventual overthrow of what they termed the Right-wing feudalistic Government in the Federation of Malaya by strengthening the determined struggle that is now being waged against it by socialist forces.

Sir, the term "socialist forces" is an elastic one. It can cover "democratic socialist"; it can also cover the Malayan Communist Party. The Member for Queenstown, in reference to socialist forces, qualified it with the adjective "progressive" socialist forces. Sir, we who are familiar with Marxist literature are quite clear in our own minds what is the significance of this word.

Sir, the general statement of the Barisan Sosialis was set out in aggressive and indeed in truculent terms. The tone of the statement was not that of a group of people who want to reach real agreement with the Federation Government to effect merger. Rather they displayed the mood of a group of angry young men setting out to tell the Tunku just where he got off. May I quote -

Mr Speaker: There seems to be some interference from earphones which have not been turned off. I do not know whether Members can trace them. Will Members just turn off any earphone that has not been turned off? I am sorry about the interruption, Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: May I quote some extracts, Sir? Indeed the Member for Queenstown has obliged me by reading out the more truculent bit of the statement without perhaps realising its implication. The statement said:

'We fully realise that many of the policies of the present Right-wing Government in the Federation are unacceptable to us. The present Federation Government in close alliance with foreign capital has bound the country to the so-called British/Malaya mutual defence treaty, turned the motherland into a military base for British armed forces ...'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Vice-Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Sidney Woodhull, when talking to the Naval Base Workers Union, advocated a policy of continuation of the British Defence Services in Singapore. To continue, Sir:

'The Federation's foreign policy has alienated our country from the main stream of Asia. Its internal policies are repressive particularly to trade unions and intellectuals [these are the terms which the Member for Queenstown did not read out]. Freedom of expression, organisation and other civil liberties are curbed and its education policy is misguided.'

Nevertheless, they stated that they were prepared to accept merger under these conditions provided it occurs immediately and is followed by pan-Malayan general elections.

Sir, no one is going to take statements of this sort as a genuine and sincere attempt to solve the very difficult problem that exists in relations between Singapore (with its preponderant Chinese population) and the Federation of Malaya, where political power rests mainly with the Malays. This kind of approach, Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest, is intended to incite trouble and not seek concord and agreement.

Sir, if I may go back to the subject of citizenship. I refer briefly to the radio forum of the 21st September in which both the Member for Queenstown and I took part. He said that I was either trying to deceive him or else I got my facts wrong. Sir, neither of this is true. The forum was recorded on the evening of Tuesday, 19th September, and on the previous day, 18th September, the Barisan Sosialis' view on merger was splashed as headlines in the Straits Times. May I read an extract of Mr Lim Ching Siong's view on what he meant by a full and complete merger with the Federation? He said that "this was a genuine reunification of our country and our peoples and the entry of Singapore into the Federation as one of its constituent states like Malacca or Penang with all its citizens automatically becoming citizens of the Federation." I pointed out in the forum the inconsistencies of this so-called true merger plan. If they wanted Singapore to be treated in the same way as Penang and Malacca, then obviously the citizenship laws applicable to those States must apply to Singapore. In this event, only persons born in Singapore would acquire automatic citizenship. The others would be disenfranchised and have to get on to the electoral list, if they wanted to, by the process of registration. This is what I said.

The Barisan Sosialis then realised that they had perpetrated a howler. Henceforth from that moment, there was no more reference either to Penang or Malacca. The reason is simple, Sir. They wanted to be treated even more favourably than Penang or Malacca. They invoked Article 22 of the Federal Constitution to say that this is a perfectly possible proposition. I expect if we use the word "possible" in its widest sense, they are right. But dealing in a real world and with practical people, its possibility is purely academic. The Tunku has put it quite nicely. He said he could agree, if he would, but he would not. And there the matter ends, unless the Barisan Sosialis can say just how the Tunku and the Federation Government can be persuaded to change their minds.

In our discussions with the Federation Government, it was made clear to us that Penang and Malacca were treated with special consideration. Further, they were part of the Federation at the time of merger, and indeed since 1948. Residence in Penang or Malacca would count as residence in the Federation, because these territories had been part of the Federation. Residence in Singapore in the past, say, 12 years might well not be considered as residence in the Federation, for the simple reason that Singapore is not yet part of the Federation.

Sir, I do not wish to go into the complexities of the law. But what the Barisan Sosialis must establish and prove is that Singapore citizens have been reduced to a second-class status. What are they losing after merger? The Member for Queenstown considered this answer and agreed that no Singapore citizen loses anything. Every citizen gains something. The most obvious and immediate gain is that he has the right to vote for the Central Parliament, the right to stand as a candidate to this Parliament. How can this be a phoney merger if Singapore citizens have the right to vote for and stand in the Federation Parliament, and, at the same time, we retain all the essential powers - reserve powers - which are necessary to keep our entrepot economy going, to ensure that our education system and policies are acceptable to parents and students?

Sir, in his preliminary remarks, the Member for Queenstown gave a highly distorted account of the recent political events in Singapore. May I refresh the memories of Members of this House by a brief summary? He said that there had been a serious decline in the original massive majority of the P.A.P. Government in this House. As a result of this, the P.A.P. raised the bogey of Communism to divert the attention of the people from their dire predicament. This technique, he claimed, is a familiar one to dictatorial regimes clutching desperately at any straw for its survival. Thus the P.A.P. clutched at the straw of merger, and immediately made the proposal to the Tunku. The Tunku became convinced of their argument that a take-over by pro-Communist elements in Singapore was imminent and therefore his intervention was necessary in the interests of the Federation itself.

Sir, finally, and this is the point I must rebut, he said that the P.A.P. went through the intricate exercise of manipulating the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya solely with the object of getting the Federation Government to do what the Member called the dirty work for them. He was referring to the incarceration of political opponents of the Government.

I think, Sir, this summary sets out fairly the thesis of the Member for Queenstown. His account, of course, was punctuated by frequent personal attacks on the person of the Prime Minister. Sir, he repeatedly warned the House that we are desperate men.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that this seemingly damning and devastating indictment of the Government was met not by machine-gun fire expected of dictators in desperation, but with outbursts of merriment in which the Member himself on several occasions took part. Indeed, on one occasion, he was so seized with laughter that you had to come to his rescue. Sir, if we were men of desperation, I suggest we would not meet calumnies of this kind with gentle laughter. We would have been, in fact, we were - [Interruption] Sir, misbehaviour? If I may be permitted to continue, Mr Speaker, Sir? If we were a dictatorial regime, a bunch of toughs that the Member for Queenstown made us out to be, we might have seen the sinister figure of the Minister for Home Affairs departing from this Chamber to the nearest telephone to summon his strong-arm squad to deal expeditiously with the Member for Queenstown.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): On a point of order, Sir. I wonder whether it is in order for the Minister to read his speech.

Mr Speaker: I must confess I have not noticed that the Minister has, in fact, been reading, but he has been referring to his notes a great deal, perhaps just as much as the Member for Queenstown.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): At least he has the credit of writing it himself.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the truth is that we are not desperate men, because we have no reason to feel desperate.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): All mad people say that!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Queenstown, and I think the Member for Nee Soon too, seem to be under the illusion that our fortunes are irretrievably lost while the red star of the Barisan Sosialis rises in the ascendancy.

Sir, I do not know what reasons have induced such a state of euphoria in the hon. Member's mind.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Hold a mass rally and you will find out!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Indeed, Sir, they held a series of mass rallies and they had to abandon them because two or three hundred people turned up. They tried to blame us for that.

Sir, if I were the Member for Queenstown, far from experiencing a state of euphoria, I would view the future with the gravest forebodings, for I see in it nothing to justify any elation on his part. May I explain myself? The Member for Queenstown is a chess player, as I have said that before, and I will use a sample chess analogy to explain to him the trouble that he and his colleagues are in.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are discussing the trouble in which this country might be. Can we refrain from discussing the Barisan Sosialis' trouble and stick to the motion?

Mr Speaker: I have not, at the moment, spotted anything which is irrelevant to the amendment. I think the Minister is probably leading up to the point which was made by the Barisan Sosialis Member in support of the amendment. Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I would have thought that the relevance is both immediate and clear, because it was the Member for Queenstown who brought up all these points and came to the conclusion that it is the wicked Government which cooked up merger in a hurry in order to fix them. I am just trying to explain that that is not the position, and that what trouble we are in now is as a result, of their own stupidities.

If I may continue, Sir, to pursue my chess analogy. There is in the game of chess a position known as zugzwang [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: I must confess that that word is completely strange to me, and I ask the Minister's assurance that it is parliamentary.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, it is not only parliamentary but immediately relevant, because a player, as the Member for Queenstown knows, who is in a state of zugzwang finds that whatever moves he makes results in immediate calamity. Sir, to reduce an opponent into this rather dreadful state, a chess player does not go charging recklessly across the chessboard as if he were a rugger forward - another accomplishment of the Member for Queenstown. A chess player makes a number of fine moves whereby his pieces occupy dominant squares on the board while his opponent gets progressively more and more constricted. I suggest that the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues should review their position in a more realistic manner. They should plant their feet firmly on the ground and ask themselves where they get from here. They will suddenly discover that they are in zugzwang.

Sir, when they staged their treacherous defection from the Party, they were confident that with the support of the Communists they could bring the Government down, force a general election in Singapore, and take over the government. It is clear that this plan of theirs, which they blithely called the October Revolution, has grossly misfired. When October came to a close and they were asked what of their October Revolution, they replied - and they were correct historically - that the October Revolution in Russia took place in November. Sir, we still have a few more days left of November, but I am afraid that the sands of time are running out very fast.

Mr Bani: You sound nervous.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Who said that? Sir, the Member for Thomson should reserve any anxiety he may feel for his own person.

Sir, the Government is in office and it is not within their power to throw it out of office. Merger is around the corner, as an inevitable historical process. What could they expect after merger? I suggest to them - that is, the non-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis, and nobody is suggesting that every member of that Party is a Communist - that they should review their relations with the Communists and stop pretending, as the Member for Queenstown is now doing, that Communism is merely a bogey invented by the P.A.P.

Sir, everybody knows that when the P.A.P. was formed in 1954, it was heavily infiltrated right from the beginning by the Communists and their sympathisers.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Dissidents, not Communists.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The years 1954-55 was one phase in Singapore. It was a phase of the anti-colonial struggle. We have explained many times in the past that in this phase the common enemy were the colonialists and that all those who hated them had to gang up to fight them. For the P.A.P., this was a difficult period, because in the minds of many people we had been completely identified with the Communist cause.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are now on the amendment and I am just wondering how what the Minister is saying ties up with the amendment. I just have not got it at the moment. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: My line of argument, briefly, is this. The Barisan Sosialis, in all its political propaganda line, has been saying that merger, the agreement that we have come to with the Tunku, was as a result of certain fears that we instilled in his mind about Communism, that the Communist fear is only a bogey, that it is not a threat to Singapore, and that we have raised this bogey for our personal interest in order that the Tunku can come and suppress our political opponents. My point is that the existence of Communists is a reality and, more than any other people, we can testify to their existence and to the reality of the Communist threat.

Mr Speaker: I was just wondering whether that line of argument would not be better advanced when we deal with the substantive motion. We are now dealing with the amendment which suggests that "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 genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day."

I was just wondering whether the debate could not be confined to the question of Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day. Dr Goh. [Interruption].

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I think it is only fair that since the Member for Queenstown has made his allegation - not once but repeatedly - at least today I should have the opportunity to rebut his arguments.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the procedure is not known to the Minister. If the Minister just confines himself to the amendment, then when we do come back to the substantive motion he will have another opportunity of speaking. [Interruption]. The Prime Minister may, if he likes to, speak on a point of order.

The Prime Minister: If I may explain it? My colleague, the Minister for Finance, is suffering from a heavy cold, and for that reason he did not hear the Member for Queenstown. I think he is having some difficulty hearing you also, Mr Speaker. I was explaining to him the point you have made. I think the point the Minister for Finance wishes to make is this. The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is that Singapore should go in as the twelfth State of the Federation, with automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federation citizens. The point that my colleague, the Minister for Finance, wishes to make is that the Federation Government is fully aware of whom it is taking in as the twelfth State, and who are the persons who are clamouring for automatic conversion, and they include Communists. That is the point that requires to be made.

Mr Speaker: Now I see the point. The Minister then is indicating to the House that it is not possible for Singapore to enter the Federation as the twelfth State with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens because of the Communist threat. Yes, Dr Goh.

An hon. Member: 340,000 Communists!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, as I was saying, the period 1954-55 was one phase in Singapore. It was a phase of the straight anti-colonial struggle. We have explained that in this phase the common enemy we faced were the colonialists, and all those who hated them had to gang up to fight them. For the P.A.P., this was a most difficult period. It was not possible on our part to break away from the Communists, because this would seriously weaken the anti-colonial struggle. When we went along with them, we ran certain risks - the risk of suppression by force and political detention. Those risks we took, for there was no other way out. At the same time, we attempted to minimise the risk by drawing quite clearly the line between the pro-Communists and the non-Communists. As early as 1955, we pointed out that in Malaya, then under colonial rule, there was a three-cornered fight going on between the British, Malayan nationals and the Communists. We made it quite clear at that time that we did not want a Communist Malaya. May I quote from an article in the P.A.P.'s First Souvenir Number dated November 1955, by the Secretary-General:

'The P.A.P. was formed with the object of rallying the forces which are striving for independence. It is the vehicle for all those who seek to build a free and democratic Malaya. We do not want a colonial Malaya because we do not want to build Malaya whose resources are developed for the benefit of the British people. We do not want a Communist Malaya because we do not want a one party State. We believe that the best way for us is an independent, democratic and non-Communist Malaya.'

Sir, when the P.A.P. was in the Opposition, the task before us was a straight one - to wrest power from the British with the aid and support of all those who were prepared to fight them, including the Communists. While the objective was clear, the method of operation needed to be carefully mapped. Having the Communists with you in the anti-colonial struggle, or indeed in any form of struggle, you have to take certain precautions. First, to ensure that they do not swallow you up. Second, in the event they stray away from your policy of constitutional struggle -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir, I do apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but it seems to me, Sir, that this history of the P.A.P. has nothing to do with the motion. I do ask you to consider it, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I understood the Minister to say that he is leading up to the point that amongst those citizens who are claiming to be Federal citizens automatically on Merger Day, there are the Communists who have been building up in Singapore. If I am right, then, of course, the Minister is in order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is one of our difficulties. If the position were such that there were no Communists around us, that the whole thing was a myth and a bogey, then a lot of the difficulties which we have to encounter would not arise.

Sir, to explain the nature of these difficulties, I must pursue this little narrative. We have to take precautions to ensure that the Communists do not swallow us up. Secondly, in the event that they stray away from your policy of constitutional struggle and launch into a wild adventure on their own, you should take precautions that in the event of action being taken against them, those who decide how such action is to be taken understand that there is a difference between the Communists and the non-Communists. Sir, in our experience, we have found the greatest difficulty in carrying out operations of this kind, which are both complex and risky. We can reduce the risks but cannot totally eliminate them. One of the ways in which the risks can be reduced is to make as clear as is possible -

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I would like to seek your advice whether we could go back to the quotation of the Minister just now. He made a quotation from the Prime Minister's speech in the First Anniversary Souvenir copy of the P.A.P., and he only quoted one part of it. Is it in order for me, Sir, to ask him to quote the other part?

Mr Speaker: Of course, it would have been in order if the hon. Member had got up in time. He is a bit late, Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: As I have said, the risks involved in making common cause with the Communists can be reduced if we can make clear - as clear as is possible in the circumstances - the dividing line between the Communists and ourselves. And this must be done not only in words. It should be done by overt action from which a reasonable and well-informed man can draw his inferences. As you can well imagine, Sir, this whole business involves the practice of the art of brinkmanship to a high degree of skill. For without this very necessary safeguard, and indeed some element of sheer good luck, it could well have been the fate of the P.A.P. to have been swallowed up long ago by the Communists, or to have been suppressed, banned, and its leaders, including the non-Communists, incarcerated long ago. So we took the precaution and we survived. Now being Ministers of State we have been able to check that the margin of escape had been much narrower and more hazardous than we ourselves had imagined at the times the events took place.

Sir, in this respect the policy of the P.A.P. then differed directly from the line the Barisan Sosialis is taking. When the Prime Minister was then the' Member for Tanjong Pagar in the Opposition, he had on several occasions to speak on the subject of Communists and their relations with the Party, on the future of Singapore and Malaya in the three-cornered struggle between the British, the nationalists and the Communists. And a great deal of what he said in the past is relevant to the issues that we are debating today. Because it is the existence of Communists, many of whom have taken citizenship in Singapore, that we find reluctance on the part of the Federation Government in matters of citizenship proposals. We have never gone as far as the Barisan Sosialis in denying, as they now deny, the existence of Communists or dismissing them as bogeys. We accepted that they were a real force to be reckoned with, but that the question of identifying a man as a Communist was not an easy one. In one of his speeches, the then Member for Tanjong Pagar said - and here I am only speaking From recollection -

The Prime Minister: Hansard.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He said that no Communist would ever admit -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order, Sir. So far I do not see any reference to the amendment in his speech. I do not find any relevance to the amendment to the motion.

Mr Speaker: I think I have just heard the Member say something about those Communists who have obtained Singapore citizenship. Am I right?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I cannot see how that is irrelevant. Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, our trouble and indeed the trouble of any government, is to say who is a Communist and who is not. That is the question between the man and God. Between God and him, however, there lies the Special Branch whose business it is to find out what is going on. The Special Branch consists of professional officers who are experienced in tracking Communist subversion in all its multifarious forms. In security matters, it is usually the Minister of the Interior of the Government who decides what to do after he has been furnished with appraisals by his professional officers. The position in Singapore is somewhat different, because the supreme authority in these matters is the Internal Security Council and not my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs. After merger, it would be the Minister of the Interior of the Government of the Federation who decide on these matters.

Sir, what I am going to say about the risks of playing with the Communists and the difficulties of identifying them is not what the Federation Minister of the Interior told me. He is a personal friend of mine and, indeed, a former contemporary of the Member for Queenstown iii the College of Medicine. I do not discuss security matters with the Minister of the Interior, and, of course, it would be quite improper for me to try and ascertain what his opinions are. My views on the hazards of the course of action decided upon by the Barisan Sosialis and the general problem of working with the Communists are based on the personal experience of myself and other colleagues of mine in the People's Action Party before we formed the Government. For the Barisan Sosialis are now in the same position that we were in in the old days, and much of the considerations that we took into account apply with equal force now, and with the prospect of merger perhaps with even greater force.

I mentioned the Minister of the Interior a moment ago. He did make a remark to me which may be of interest to the Member for Queenstown. The last time I played a round of golf with him in Kuala Lumpur, he enquired after the Member for Queenstown. He asked me whether the man was in his right mind. I hastened to the defence of the Member and said that Singapore can be an excitable place at times and people do tend somewhat to lose their sense of proportion. I do not know whether the Minister of the Interior had in mind any special activity on the part of the Member for Queenstown, or whether he was merely making a casual reference to a previous occasion when all three of us met. That occasion is worth recollecting. It was at a cocktail party on National Day -

Mr Speaker: Are all these details really relevant to the motion we are discussing? I cannot see how they are relevant.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, in matters of application of citizenship wh re, for instance, the Member for Queenstown is not horn in Singapore but in the Federation, where there is a case for believing that he is playing an important role in a Communist-front organisation, I suggest that relations between the Member for Queenstown and the Minister of the Interior of the Federation are of some significance. The whole attitude, if you will allow me, of this narrative has a moral. It shows that the approach of the Member for Queenstown in this matter is just "out of this world". He does not understand what is going on.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is a pity that the Minister is associating this very interesting narrative with the Member for Queenstown, because it seems to me that he is now touching on perhaps the personal conduct of the Member for Queenstown. If he wishes to do so, he has to file a substantive motion. If the Minister had started this narrative and spoken of a character not associated with the Member for Queenstown, then perhaps he would have been in order to illustrate his point. But I have already indicated that I do not wish to have any personalities in this debate.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, may I be of assistance? I think my colleague is finding it difficult to follow you because he is having a heavy cold. It happens to be true, and he is supposed to consult a doctor. The point is quite simple, Sir. The persons who hope to smuggle themselves into the Federal citizenship clause by automatic conversion include, among others, those not born in Singapore, like the Member for Queenstown. The point that my colleague was wanting to make is this. That not only is the Federation Government anxious to see that Communists do not get Federation citizenship in the process of reapplication for registration - I do not think I am giving away any secret when I say this; their policy is quite clear-cut - but that no Communist gets his registration through; and the point my colleague wants to make is, so will neo-Communists or those who assist the Communists.

Mr Speaker: I think that is appreciated by everybody. But my point is that the Minister was talking about a cocktail party, which is, of course, completely irrelevant. If he just sticks to the moral to be drawn from these matters, then that is all right; he is in order. But when he talks about cocktail parties and little social gatherings like that, he is going into details which takes him away from the motion.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I suggest that relations between the Minister of the Interior of the Federation Government and the leader of the largest Opposition party is a matter of some relevance to this matter. If they get on well together, then there is implicit trust between them. Then certain attitudes of mind would form in the minds of the Ministers in the Federation. But if, on the other hand, attitudes are different, then we could expect the same difficulties to arise over this problem. However, Sir, if you think that I should skip over these matters, I will do so.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have never suggested that the Minister should skip over the matters, if by matters he means the matters which have been touched upon by the Prime Minister. They are very important matters. What I am trying to stop is the bringing in of personalities. That must stop.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the point is this. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The relationship between the Minister of the Interior and the leader of the largest Opposition party is a matter of some relevance in what is going on between the two Governments, because the Member for Queenstown is believed by many people, including people in high office in the Federation, to be lea-ding Communist open-front organisation, and he is one of the persons born outside Singapore who would automatically qualify for citizenship under the proposals of the amended motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is looking at the Speaker in such a way that he is inviting perhaps further comment. I think a statement of that nature introduces the personal conduct of Members. Under our Standing Orders, the personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose. I have indicated that if the Minister had mentioned an abstract case, not pin-pointing a Member of the Assembly, then he would have been in order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, it is not personal conduct in the sense that there is anything derogatory attached to it. I just wanted to relate some conversation between the Minister of the Interior and the Member for Queenstown to show that relations between them are not what they should be and could be a cause of difficulty in the future. I will not press the point.

I will return to my principal theme, which is that the Member for Queenstown charged us - and this is a most serious allegation which he made several times in the course of his address - as wanting to egg the Federation Government on or connive with them to bring about merger in order to swipe our political opponents. Sir, that is a very serious charge. We of the P.A.P. have done and will do no such thing. Events must take their inevitable course, for the folly of our adversaries will bring about their own retribution. For these reasons, perhaps we may discuss these matters in order to save as many of them as possible from future agony by pointing out the dangers lurking ahead and how they may be avoided. In the event the Barisan Sosialis fail or prove unsuccessful in avoiding these dangers, then may I say that they could hardly blame us, for now we are making - I am making a special effort to save them from these dangers. Sir, one way of getting round these difficulties is, as I said before, adroit brinkmanship. In this regard, Sir, we may ask how the Member for Queenstown has measured up in his performance of brinkmanship. Judging by the address that we have just heard, I would venture to say that he has not even learnt the elements of the game. He has been as adroit as a blind elephant. Nor are his colleagues any better. Far from attempting to draw the line between himself and the Communists, they have gone out of their way to blur the line. In fact, they have decided, for practical purposes, to provide the Communists with 100 per cent cover. As an example, they have derided the recent broadcast of the Prime Minister on Communist activities as smear.

The Prime Minister's broadcast was a factual account of Communist activities in Singapore as he knew them. Persons were identified. If what the Prime Minister had said was not true, then these persons have a legal redress in a court of law at which the Prime Minister will have to substantiate the truth of his statements, failing which the aggrieved party stands to gain considerable sums of money in the way of damages for defamation of character.

All this is widely known. Yet the Member for Queenstown and other Barisan Sosialis leaders dismiss this account as a smear. The Member for Queenstown has repeatedly said that this is merely raising the bogey of Communism. If the communists are mere bogeys, then it means, in effect, that they are non-existent. Does the Member for Queenstown seriously suggest that there are no Communists in Singapore? The Communists have been able to mount a military campaign of some dimension in the Federation of Malaya, which has taken a large armed force some ten years to suppress. They have mounted strikes and riots in Singapore at periodical intervals since 1946. Where have they all gone to? Have they, like the Arabs, folded up their tents and disappeared into the night?

We of the P.A.P. who have been working with these people say that they are right in our midst. Does the Member for Queenstown really believe that this is not the case? The Member for Queenstown, in trying to explain why such rapid progress had been made toward merger, said that the P.A.P. has led the Tunku into the belief that without merger there would be a take-over of the State by the pro-Communist groups; and the Tunku, formerly indifferent or even hostile to merger, has now accepted it as necessary and in the interest of the Federation to frustrate the aspiration of the Communists. The Tunku has himself expressed this belief in public not once but on several occasions, both in Malaya and abroad.

How was the Tunku brought to this state of mind? The Member for Queens-town places the whole credit for this on the Prime Minister. May I suggest that his explanation is altogether too naive? It is at the same time unduly complimentary to the Prime Minister as well as unduly derogatory of the Tunku. The Tunku possesses a shrewdness of judgment of which the Member for Queenstown is completely unaware.

The real fact of the matter is that it is the Communists who have succeeded in convincing the Tunku that early merger is to the interests of both Singapore and the Federation.

Members will recall what happened during the Anson by-election. The Member for Queenstown himself here has made reference to some incidents. But he can hardly expect us to accept his interpretation of events that took place. The Tunku made certain general proposals about Greater Malaysia which the P.A.P. supported in principle, if Greater Malaysia would lead to merger between Singapore and the Federation. Almost immediately, Mr Lim Ching Siong, on the other hand, came out with a counter proposal for complete internal self-government as the next constitutional advance for Singapore - in addition to complete internal self-government, that steps should be taken to abolish the Internal Security Council. Sir, before long, the Communists suddenly got the idea that the Greater Malaysia Plan had been completely worked out in detail, had been agreed to and signed by all the Governments concerned. It would be curious to know what had led them to this belief, but the fact that they so believed is beyond doubt. We the P.A.P. felt the full repercussions of their activities whilst they came to this conclusion. Our Parliamentary Secretaries who were flirting with pro-Communist groups at that time pressed Ministers for a full, frank and complete revelation of the Greater Malaysia Plan. They were so certain that we had agreed to it that they would not accept any denial on our part whatsoever. They were certain that some secret document was locked up in somebody's safe containing all the details of the super merger, whose sole intention, according to these groups, was to have the Communists fixed.

Sir, when they came to this belief which turned out in the end to be completely without foundation, as they realised it themselves today, there was a general rampage throughout Singapore - the unions, party branches, associations and elsewhere. In so doing they clearly revealed their intentions, their fears and apprehensions, and disclosed their hand. If nothing else was needed to convince the Tunku that merger was necessary, then the extraordinary conduct of the pro-Communist groups and their allies during and after the Anson by-election just provided that final conclusive bit of evidence that was necessary to convince the Tunku.

So, Merger is now before us. The Communists and their front men want to frustrate it. They have two ways of doing so, each of which will prove equally unprofitable and unavailing. For merger is an inevitable historical process and cannot be checked by manoeuvres of groups or frustrated by the ambitions of a few. These groups, however, if they choose, can play it the constitutional way, abiding by the Queensberry rules. If they so choose to do, we too in the Government will abide by Queensberry rules. But if, as the Prime Minister has said, they go for Siamese boxing, then they need not have any doubt that an adequate reply will be forthcoming. The choice rests with them.

In the meantime, Sir, I conclude my address with this advice to those non-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis - to study the art of brinkmanship, or better still, to hop it while the going is good.

7.47 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not thought of participating in the debate so early, but as there is a possibility that the trend of this debate may create misunderstanding in the minds of people in the Federation with whom we all long to be friends, I feel that I must speak at this particular time.

First of all, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis said yesterday that a new star was born. Sir,I know very little about stars and "starology", or whatever you call it. As far as I know, stars are not born at all. They just rise in the firmament, In fact, stars have no parentage. So stars are not born. But if they say that a star is born, then perhaps they mean a film star; and the performance of the leader of the Barisan Sosialis yesterday and today for about 7� hours does not, in our view, qualify him for an Oscar, because it is repetitive and in certain parts highly indiscreet -

Mr Rajaratnam: Gone with the wind!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: But I do not blame them for all the mistakes they have made, and I will explain why, Sir. The Minister for Labour, in moving the motion which is of such an important character, has found it necessary, in spite of the claim that the P.A.P. has a Ministry of Culture, to dare the Barisan Sosialis to declare their stand, and they try to cast doubts in the minds of Members of the Assembly that the Barisan Sosialis are people who say one thing and mean another thing -

Mr Speaker: Order. It has now become quite apparent that hon. Members will not be able to draw a line between the main substantive motion and the amendment. I appreciate the difficulty because the subjects are intertwined. There is, of course, another procedural method of overcoming that, and that is that the vote on the amendment could be taken at the end of the complete debate, so that if hon. Members then wish to speak on the main motion and on the amendment together they can do so. The only difference is that they can make only one speech. The only person who can reply will be the Minister who, in fact, moved the substantive motion. That is the procedural device which perhaps Members should think about, if that is a better way of dealing with the subject, then I will rule that that should be done. But if we are to continue on the line that we are to debate only on the amendment, then I am afraid Members will get out of order, as the Minister for Finance has and as the Member for Cairnhill is about to do. I would like views on that procedural device.

Mr David Marshall: Could I ask for some clarification, Sir? Yesterday, if you remember, you said you would permit us to debate on what are now items 1 and 3 and the amendment to item 4. If we accept your suggestion, Sir, would those speaking on the present amendment have to cover the entire field of items 1, 3 and 4, or could we just cover item 1 with its amendment, and when the question is proposed we may be allowed to deal with item 3 and the amendment to item 4?

Mr Speaker: No. The suggestion I make is that the ruling I made yesterday should stand, except paragraph 3 - "Debate will then be confined to this amendment." That is all. If it is convenient for Members to deal with the whole aspect of merger, including now the aspect which is indicated in the amendment which has been proposed to item 1, then I am prepared to make the ruling that that should be so. But I might indicate that that would mean that Members who now speak would only be given one speech, and at the end of all speeches, the Minister for Labour will have the right to reply and votes can he taken not only on item 1, but also on this present amendment, and again on item 3 and the amendment as shown in item 4. It is only a matter of convenience.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the amendment and reserve my right to speak on the main motion at a later stage.

Mr Speaker: That is all right as far as I am concerned, but if the Member for Cairnhill goes outside the amendment, then he will be pulled up. That is all there is to it.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With due respect, Sir, I did not. What I was doing was to try to find a reason for the blistering attack which the leader of the Barisan Sosialis had levelled against the P.A.P. on a motion that is of such an important character that we should all of us sink our differences, and think and debate together whether or not it is in the best interests of the people of Singapore to have merger with the Federation of Malaya. Instead of which, the debate has turned into a fight between the ex-P.A.P., which is now the Barisan Sosialis, and the P.A.P. that remains.

Mr Speaker: All that the Member for Cairnhill has said is completely irrelevant to the amendment. The amendment merely suggests to the House that it "affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day."

If Members assure me that the debate can be confined to the amendment, then, of course, we will stick to the first ruling.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I rise to oppose the amendment. But I want it to be understood clearly in this House, Sir, that far be it from me and my Party to come to the defence of the P.A.P. that is fast disintegrating, we oppose the amendment not because we want to defend the P.A.P., but we oppose it because we think that the amendment proposed by the Barisan Sosialis -

8.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.