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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: Question. Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Question No. 1*, Sir.

• The Question reads as follows: -

To ask the Minister for Finance how many permits were granted in respect of fruit machins in 1956 and in 1960, and the number of fruit machines which it is anticipated require replacement under the provisions of the Prohibition of Imports (Amusement Machines) (Amendment) Order, 1961.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) (not being in his seat) --

Mr Speaker: The Minister not being here, the answer will be circulated and be printed in the Official Report.

2.32 p.m.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [21st November, 1961] to 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", third 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 Minster for Labour-Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim).

Which Amendment was,

'To leave out from "a" in the second last line to the end and 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".'-(Dr Lee Siew Choh).

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

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday when I was saving that we were against the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown, the adjournment took place and that was that. But then, unfortunately, over Radio Singapore, it was reported that the Member for Cairnhill said that he was against the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown for a genuine merger making Singapore the twelfth State of the Federation and that all citizens of Singapore shall enjoy citizenship rights. That, I think, Sir, is a distortion. I said we were against the amendment - and I say it again - we are against the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown. But we are not against a merger that is genuine, a merger that brings Singapore into the Federation as an integral part of the Federation, where all the citizens of Singapore enjoy the same benefits as all other citizens in the various States of the Federation of Malaya. We are against the amendment because some of the words are redundant, others are tautologous. and the motive behind the amendment is nothing but political. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, being a new star that has arisen - before it arose it was a different star - say they are for merger. Everyone says, "Merger"; "We are for merger!" We all know what we mean by the word "merger". Merger means the integration of Singapore as a part of the Federation and the rights enjoyed by the citizens of the Federation will be conferred on the citizens of Singapore when merger takes place. That is what we all mean by merger, and what we all know. But unfortunately, because of the political moves on the part of politicians, the Prime Minister and his ex-comrades, merger has been twisted to mean something else. And that is not what merger really means. Merger can only mean one thing: it is a state whereby those that are separated are brought together again into a happy family. That is the merger we know of. It is that state. But the form that this merger should take can be genuine or cannot be genuine. All the attacks that the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has been levelling at the government are towards the form that this merger should take, but not towards the state of merger itself. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis made that very clear in his opening speech. He said he was for it. If I may quote him, he said, "the words of this motion moved by the Minister for Labour convey high and noble meanings which none of us can disagree." He does not disagree. That is in the Straits Times, Sir; I am not quoting from it but I was just refreshing my memory about the words he said. It is not a quotation. I thought he said, "words that convey a noble sentiment with which none of us in this Chamber can disagree." It was clear. He said that, and he said again earlier - and this I quote from the Straits Times of 21st November:

'"We would have supported this motion before the House 100 per cent had it not been for the shameful record of the Government in recent months."'

It was clear. The Barisan Sosialis would have supported this motion .100 per cent, but as the leader said, because of the twists and turns of the Government in trying to present the negotiations that the Government has been having with the Government of the Federation of Malaya, he became unhappy. That caused him to focus attention on the fact that the merger that the Government is trying to foist - I think the word was "foist" - on the people of Singapore is not a genuine merger. And that caused him to move an amendment. But surely he should not have moved it. He is in full support of the noble sentiments expressed in the motion moved by the Minister for Labour. I can understand, Sir, why he was stirred into speaking for so long and so bitterly against the P.A.P. It was because the Minister for Labour, in moving a motion that is of the gravest importance to the livelihood and welfare of the people of Singapore, had thought it necessary, in spite of the Government's boast of having a Ministry of Culture, to dare their ex-comrades (the Barisan Sosialis) to state their stand. And even if they say it is white, they will not believe it. They smear. "No, it is not white. It could be black." And even if they say, "Black", they say, "No, it could be white." How could they do that? If the Government is sincere in getting a unanimous vote on a motion of such importance - and everyone cannot deny it is a motion of importance - the Government should not go out of its way and start casting doubts on their own ex-comrades. That is the P.A.P.'s style - every time they stand up in this Assembly, they say, "We couldn't care less how the Opposition vote", and yet they want a unanimous vote. That is the kind of culture they have been indoctrinating themselves.

Sir, again, on a motion of such grave importance, what do we see? The P.A.P. Ministers showing such levity - laughing, and laughing, and laughing at everything that the Member for Queenstown said. And it was then disclosed by the Minister for Finance yesterday that they laughed it off because what the Member for Queenstown said about them was not true, and that was the only way for them to show their contempt. That is their kind of culture. I am sure the people of Singapore do not relish that kind of culture.

Sir, I have said that we oppose this amendment because it is just so many extra words put in. I know, and as I have endeavoured to explain, the Bansan Sosialis leader has said that he is for the sentiments expressed in that simple motion. "We all want merger." Yes, we all want merger. How to achieve that merger? What form that merger should take is a different thing, and a debate would have arisen when the motion of the Prime Minister on Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 was moved. But because of the trend of the debate, Sir, you have ruled that we can speak on the other two related motions.

Now, what the Barisan Sosialis is against is the form of merger. Unfortunately they have got the wrong end of the stick. But they have been misguided by the Prime Minister in all his utterances in public, over Radio Singapore, and even here. He calls it merger. Sir, the closer relationship that we are getting with the Federation of Malaya is not merger. Let us get away from that word. It is not merger. Even the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya says, "It is more correct to describe this as a very close relationship." That is all.

Mr David Marshall: Association.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Association. We are getting closer and closer. It is not merger. So if the P.A.P. would get away from that word "merger", then I think the Barisan Sosialis would have said, "All that we have said about phoney merger, humbug merger, would not apply." But it is because of the attempt by the P.A.P. to try to claim political credit for something that is not of their own making - they claim, "Now we are getting merger."

Sir, when we oppose this amendment, it must not be taken to mean that we are anxious to defend the P.A.P. - the P.A.P. in our eyes and in the eyes of the public stands condemned. But we cannot, just for political expediency, support an amendment moved by the new star, which came out of the old star, just because we are in the Opposition. To us, Sir, and to the public, the P.A.P. means those that now remain of that torn organisation and those that have come out, the P.A.P. on that side of the House, and the P.A.P. who have come to this side of the House. They are still the P.A.P., no matter what they call themselves - Barisan Sosialis, or whatever new star they want to claim has arisen over the horizon. It is strange that ex-comrades have challenged their erstwhile comrades, the P.A.P., to resign because they have lost their mandate. "Hold a general election. They have lost their mandate." But, Sir, may I remind the retired members of the P.A.P., the new star, the Barisan Sosialis, that they were the P.A.P. too when they were elected to this Assembly? In fact, in 1959 all of them were fighting under one banner. All of them were so united, presenting a united front, thereby getting the public of Singapore to work for them. Therefore, the Members who are now on this side, forming the Barisan Sosialis, were voted by the people of Singapore as representatives of the P.A.P. So if they think they want a fresh mandate in this House to show that they are no longer members of the P.A.P., but that they are the only Party which can save the country from the P.A.P., may I, therefore, suggest that if they keep on talking of going out for elections and getting a fresh mandate, they should get a fresh mandate from the electorate which returned them to this Chamber as representatives of the now, to them, contemptible P.A.P. if they do not do that, I hope they will not come and claim that they are the genuine representatives, the genuine opposition, the people who can give succour to the people of Singapore, and that they are the only strong Opposition with a good number - 13. Sir, to us, those who remain on that side and those who have come to this side are still the P.A.P. They are still people who, during the last two years, have caused so much damage to Singapore and who have -

Mr Speaker: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Member would come to the end of his peroration. We are now on an 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 Federation Citizens on Merger Day."

Perhaps the Member could now concentrate on the amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I will have to touch on the point raised by the Member for Queenstown when he moved the amendment. In moving that amendment he was trying to say that those who are left of the P.A.P. are people who are indulging in a sell-out, and that those who have come out of the P.A.P. are the people who are not going to buy it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member does know that the Member for Queenstown was compelled, as he was speaking on the main motion, to speak on all items touching on merger. That is, items 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, he had to range over a wide field and then move his amendment. The procedure is that once an amendment is moved, we have to dispose of that amendment first. That would not prevent the Member for Cairnhill from coming back to his attack when we come back to the main motion, either as originally posed or as amended. I did suggest a procedural device yesterday, hoping that there would not be any procedural barriers put up to Members. But in order to enforce that device, I had to have it assented to by all Members. I think it was the Member for Cairnhill who disagreed with that device. Therefore, I must now insist that the debate should be confined to the amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I bow to your ruling. Sir, merger has been, shall we say, the platform of every political Party in Singapore, even political Parties that are now defunct. Why is it so? Why is it that Parties that claim to be socialists and Parties which are described as Rightists and all sorts of unkind names all think alike? Merger - they want to get closer. They want to get integrated with the Federation of Malaya into one happy family. We all want that, and I am sure there can be no opposition to that noble sentiment flat has been expressed inside and outside this Assembly: that we want to merge with the Federation of Malaya.

In fact, Sir, if it can be said in this Assembly, even during the first negotiations of the Singapore Constitutional delegation led by the Member for Anson in London, it was suggested to the British Government that in discussions on constitutional evolution Singapore should sit in with the Federation of Malaya so that there could be one constitution for the whole of Malaya. Even as far back as that. The unfortunate thing is that the Government has tried to describe something which is not merger as merger, and thereby has caused this unhappiness in the minds and hearts of many people. I can sympathise with the leader of the Barisan Sosialis when he spoke so bitterly against the P.A.P. All I can say is that he has been misled. If he would just stand up and say that the arrangement which the Singapore Government has come to with the Federation Government is not merger, everything would have been forgiven. Instead of which, we had 7½ hours of debate just talking about citizenship rights. The Barisan Sosialis now make out that they are the biggest Opposition party and the only defenders of the rights of the citizens of Singapore.

May I, Sir, in this hall, with humility, remind the Barisan Sosialis that it was the previous Government, the Labour Front Coalition Government, that brought citizenship to the people of Singapore? Out of that, three of us still remain in this Assembly - the Member for Anson, the Member for Geylang Serai and myself. We can assure the people of Singapore and this House that we will fight tooth and nail to see that their rights are preserved, and to see that their rights are not sold down the drain. But what has been agreed between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government is not merger. Therefore, citizens of Singapore cannot become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. There is no loss of rights at all of the citizens of Singapore. I will touch on that later on.

But there is one thing I would like to point out now. The fact that the Member for Queenstown spoke for 7½ hours shows that he is a virile man. He is in top form. He is quite a good cock that can crow. But. Sir, merger is like marriage. It requires the consent of two parties. Even if a prospective bridegroom can show how virile he is, how amorous he is, how fond he is of that union, but if the bride says - or be it be the bride or the bridegroom - "Sudah lah, chakap terlampau banyak", then that would be the end. There can be no merger.

What the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has forgotten is that it takes two parties to this merger. It is not left to what we say in this Assembly. If it is just left to what we say. I do not know how many more will be saying about what the P.A.P. Government is, and that the sooner they get out the better for all concerned. But it is something that has to do with the other party not represented in this House. Let us face facts. The other party is in a stronger position. He is in a position to say this way, that way or sit still, because he is the elder brother. Take Malaya. In size, it is bigger than Singapore. In population it is still bigger than Singapore. Even in revenue. Therefore, we are in the position of a younger brother going to an elder brother and saying, "Come on, let us live together. Do not let us have this separation which was forced upon us by the British." But no. The Member for Queenstown seems to think that the louder we shout, the more we run down our elder brother, the surer we will get complete merger. That will be the surer way to frighten the elder brother into saying, "Let us not have this younger brother who is going to cause trouble in my household." Therefore, all what he has said against the Federation, against the Government of the Federation is not going to help his Party or the people of Singapore to achieve something which he himself says is a noble sentiment. Let us get together and live together again as one happy family.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown found occasion yesterday to criticise the Tunku, and I want to say to this Assembly that the criticisms which he has levelled at the Tunku are unjustified. He says also that he is new to politics, a student of politics. Because he is new, because he is a student, perhaps we can overlook that. But may I say a few things to him about the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, and how important it is to Singapore that his friendship, his sentiments towards Singapore, should be properly realised and appreciated by everyone in Singapore?

Sir, hon. Members will remember that the Singapore Constitutional delegation went to London and negotiated. The first one was not successful because of the insistence of the British on internal security resting in their hands. But the second delegation, knowing the stand of the British Government, thought of a way to overcome that difficulty. It was left to me to speak to my good friend, Tunku Abdul Rahman, from London on the telephone and to seek, his agreement to sit in as a member of the Internal Security Council. To tell the truth, he did not quite like it. But because he felt that as Malaya and Singapore were close together and as Singapore was in need of help from the Federation to get a new constitution, he agreed. Therefore, I want to say this in this Assembly. Without the Tunku's consent to be a member of the internal Security Council, there would have been no self-governing constitution for Singapore. There would have been no 43 P.A.P. Members taking office in 1959. In 1961, 26 are left, So as far back as 1957, Tunku Abdul Rahman has shown that he is a good and true friend of Singapore. Today he is in London having discussions, with the British Government, and he is getting independence for us. What we are more concerned, the socialists particularly, is that we should get away from the British colonial yoke. That is the first goal to achieve. The British colonial yoke will be taken away from our necks, and that is being done by a true friend of Singapore, Tunku Abdul Rahman.

We have in Tunku Abdul Rahman a very staunch champion, a man who faces facts, a man who was prepared, even in the 1959 general elections in the Federation, when there was trouble in the M.C.A. ranks and he was facing this trouble from the Chinese; and when there was a group of U.M.N.O. members who suggested that they should tear away from the M.C.A. and stand on their own, but not Tunku Abdul Rahman -

Mr Speaker: Order. I did indicate that there are procedural barriers and I really do not like to interrupt too often. But will the hon. Member for Cairnhill indicate how those statements relate to the amendment? They, I think, will be very relevant when we come to debate all three items on merger. But we are now on the amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Merger, Sir, surely means the getting together of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya and, therefore, the leaders in these two countries will have to come up in our discussions. What I am trying to point out to those who have spoken bitterly against the Federation of Malaya and the Federation Government is that they are doing a disservice to Singapore, and that the attacks which they are levelling are unjustified. They do not know that the man today who is helping Singapore to get nearer towards merger is Tunku Abdul Rahman, and that is the man who has come in for attacks by the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cairnhill has brought this trouble upon himself. When the procedural device was suggested which would have given him a free hand, he objected to it, and therefore, I, as Speaker, am bound by the Standing Orders to try and keep Members within bounds. We are now on the amendment. The hon. Member is talking on merger, which would be proper when we deal with the main motion which merely speaks of a merger. The amendment says that they want a genuine merger With Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day. The meat of that amendment seems to be the question of citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day.

Let us try and get on with the amendment. The sooner we dispose of the amendment, the sooner we can go back to the three motions. The hon. Member will have as much time perhaps as the Member for Queenstown to develop his argument.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Sir, on a point of elucidation. Sir, I notice that in the amendment it states:

'to leave out from "a" in the second last line to the end and 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".'

So you see. Mr Speaker, it is not that I have come to the defence of the Member for Cairnhill only, but I think to the defence generally of all those Members who wish to speak on this amendment. I am not in concord with you. Mr Speaker, that all that we are confined to talking about on this amendment is this bit on Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day.

Mr Speaker: I never said that. I indicated that the pith of the amendment seems to be that. There is nothing to prevent Members from saying how the amendment is wrong when they speak of genuine merger as against merger, which, of course, the hon. Member for Cairnhill has already touched upon. There is nothing to prevent Members from saying whether or not Singapore should enter the Federation as the twelfth state. What I am trying to indicate is that all details which will be properly debated on an overall picture of all three items should be reserved for the proper time.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, since I find that some Members have difficulty in confining themselves to speaking on the amendment, because the issues are overlapping and inter-related, why do we not ascertain the views of Members whether to adopt the procedure as you suggested yesterday, which I think is better for all of us, because most of us have prepared our speeches which should cover all the three or four motions.

Mr David Marshall: May I, Mr Speaker, associate myself with the gentleman who just spoke? It seems to me, Sir, not a question of having prepared one's speeches, but we must appreciate that when we are speaking on the amendment about genuine merger, the twelfth state, we must balance what we mean by genuine merger with the merger proposals of the P.A.P. which bring in the White Paper. I have every sympathy, Sir, not only for you, if I may say with respect, but also for the hon. Member for Cairnhill in seeking to draw the line. I would like to accept the suggestion made by you yesterday in so far as it is possible for me.

Mr Speaker: That is exactly the trouble which I anticipated Members would find themselves in, and which the Speaker would find himself in, because all these issues seem to be overlapping and it is very difficult to draw the line. It is not too late for hon. Members to assent that we should adopt that procedure, that is to say, that the debate will now be again thrown completely open, which will mean that all Members other than the Minster for Labour will be allowed one speech and one speech only, and then at the end of the debate the Minister for Labour will reply and then votes could be taken, firstly, on this amendment, then on the main motion, and then on item 3. That, of course, will then get rid of any procedural harriers that might present themselves.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, it is not clear to me. This means that immediately after our having disposed of the amendment and when we go back to the main motion, no one will he allowed to speak on the main motion?

Mr Speaker: I thought I made myself clear. If the procedural device is accepted, then the debate from now on will range over all three items and will range over the amendment which has been proposed. And at the end of the debate after the Minister for Labour has replied, the question on the amendment will he put just for the purpose of taking a vote. The question on item I will be put just for the purpose of taking a vote; then on item 3 just for the purpose of taking a vote; and when item 4 is reached, we will wait until the Address of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is moved, then we will put the amendment of the Member for Queens-town to the vote if he so wishes. That seems to me a more tidy way of debating the matter; that is, if Members agree. As I say, I cannot foist any procedural device on Members unless I have their assent.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, did I hear you say just now something about an amendment to the amendment by the Member for Queenstown?

Mr Speaker: The point we are discussing now?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: No. I was wondering what would happen to the procedure then if that ever occurs?

Mr Speaker: Amendment to the amendment?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I thought I heard you mention just now something about an amendment to the amendment by the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker: I did not mention anything of that sort.

Mr David Marshall: Only one point of clarification. Assuming we accept this procedure, we would nevertheless he able to speak on other aspects of the speech of His Excellency than that of merger. We dispose of the amendment by vote and then we can speak on the motion?

Mr Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I suggest, Mr Speaker, that you suspend this Assembly for 10 or 15 minutes so that I can discuss this with my colleagues.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, since the Member for Queenstown has moved his amendment, two speakers have followed him. The Minister for Finance yesterday and the Member for Cairnhill yesterday and today. You have found that it is quite difficult to keep them within the confines of this amendment. For some reason or other, perhaps because most of us have prepared our speeches. So I think we should adopt this new procedure whereby we will avoid a lot of repetitious arguments and it will be easier for the Speaker to guide the proceedings of the sitting.

Mr Speaker: May I suggest then that I suspend for half an hour, allowing Members to confer amongst themselves for a quarter of an hour, and then I would suggest that the leaders of the Parties come to my Chambers and settle this procedural device? If that is acceptable, I will do so. Is that acceptable? The Member affected, of course, is the Member for Cairnhill.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I agree.

Mr Speaker: In that case, I will suspend and take this Chair again at a quarter to four.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.12 p.m. until 3.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 3.45 p.m.