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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is before the House. Mr Byrne.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson just now referred me to Article 116, which required that representation should be based on population. May I read Article 116 (4):

'Each State shall be divided into constituencies in such manner that each constituencies contains a number of electors as nearly equal to the electoral quota of the State as may be after making due allowance for the distribution of the different communities and for differences in density of population and the means of communication; but the allowance so made shall not increase or reduce the number of electors in any constituency to a number differing from the electoral quota be more than fifteen per cent.'

This, Sir, just confirms what I have been saying, namely, that allowance must be made for rural and urban representation.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has referred to subsection (4) of Article 116, which deals with constituencies in a State. We are talking about a quota of a State with reference to the Federation, and I ask that he read subsection (3) which deals with that, if he is reading subsection (4).

Mr Byrne: That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. You cannot divorce subsection (3) from subsection (4) -

An hon. Member: Read it!

Mr Byrne: Yes.

'Constituencies shall be allocated to the several States in such manner that the electoral quota of each State is as nearly equal to the electoral quota of the Federation as it can be without causing undue disparity between the population quota of that State and the population quota of the Federation.',

and then you come to subsection (4).

Mr Speaker, Sir, say they are in a State, constituencies of 10,000 voters. Say there are 100,000 voters in a State and there are 10 constituencies. There must be leverage of 15 per cent either way, Mr Speaker, Sir. You see the number of voters per candidate will vary between 8,500 and 11,500. There must be that interplay between 8,500 and 11,500, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is strange that only when merger is in prospect that the Barisan Sosialis has for the first time advanced the argument that, in fact, there are two classes of Singapore citizens, the second-class who are local-born, and the third-class who has acquired Singapore citizenship by residence. This is the first time I have known that I am a second-class citizen and my colleagues in the Government are third-class citizens.

Sir, merger or no merger, there will always be persons in the Federation who will be acquiring citizenship by residence as opposed to those who are citizens by birth. Why does the Barisan Sosialis not seek to draw such distinctions between the local-born and the rest in the Federation.

Then again, Sir, merger or no merger, Singapore citizens, whether they are local-born or have acquired Singapore citizenship by residence, can qualify to become Federal citizens if they comply with the Federation citizenship laws. Does the Barisan Sosialis reasonably con end that a Singapore citizen by residence, who qualifies to become a Federal citizen by complying with the Federation citizenship laws, promotes himself from a third-class citizen to a first-class citizen and that a Federal citizen by birth who acquires Singapore citizenship reduces himself from a first-class to a third-class citizen?

Sir, all these spurious arguments about classes of citizens have been invented by those who seek to oppose merger. Nationalists and patriots do not try to pretend that there are different classes of citizens when everybody knows that, in fact, no such distinction exist.

Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have accused the Federation Government of wanting to enforce a policy of apartheid in Singapore. I cannot see the relevance of such a charge. Surely apartheid, as we call understand it, is the deliberate political, social and economic subjugation of a larger community or group by a minority - in the interests of that minority - on the basis of colour. Can any such intention be seen in the merger proposals before this House? If it is mischievously contended by the Barisan Sosialis that the Federation Government is seeking to impose a Malay hegemony (the word "hegemony" was used, Mr Speaker, Sir) over the Chinese in Singapore through the merger proposals, then this is a complete distortion of the facts and of the truth. Are there not 3.1 million Malaysian and 2.3 million Chinese in the Federation and 0.2 million Malaysians and 1.2 million Chinese in Singapore? Do not these figures show a preponderance in favour of the Chinese? Where is the minority group which is trying to subjugate the majority group? And are not the Federation born Malays in Singapore in the third-class citizenship and the Federation-born Chinese in the first-class citizenship invented by the Barisan Sosialis? Do not the Chinese enjoy political rights both in the Federation and in the Singapore Legislatures, and is there any question of the Chinese being refused representation in the new Central Legislature?

How then can the Barisan Sosialis read into these merger proposals an attempt on the part of the Federation Government to enforce a policy of apartheid in Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we were also told that before we proceed with these merger proposals we should take note of the experience of the Irish in their struggle for independence. Sir, Ireland was annexed after bloody wars and merged in the territories of England, Wales and Scotland to constitute the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the early nineteenth century. These political arrangements were resisted by Irish nationalists. They are still resisted by Irish nationalists. After more bloody wars in the twenties of this century, Ulster was partitioned from the rest of Ireland and the Irish Free State was constituted. These are the historical facts.

The partition of Ireland was effected against the will of all Irish nationalists. In the case of Singapore, it was the British who, in pursuance of their divide and rule policy, separated Singapore from the Federation and the genuine nationalists both in Singapore and the Federation are doing their utmost to reunite these territories.

Is not the stand of the Barisan Sosialis that if automatic citizenship rights are not granted to all Singapore citizens, then there should be no merger and that Singapore should remain a fully self-governing State with control over internal security? In fact, Sir, their stand is that if merger is not effected on their terms, then they are quite content that Singapore should remain a British colony.

Who are those who are trying to divide Singapore from the Federation? Are they not the Barisan Sosialis?

Like the Irish nationalist who condemned the partition of Ireland, we shall not rest until we have put an end to the divide and rule policy of the British and have obtained the reunification of Singapore with the Federation mainland.

The Barisan Sosialis have contended that it is a humiliating fact that all persons born in Singapore after merger comes into being, will not yet become Federal citizens by right of birth. What is there humiliating about this to the people of Singapore? Is not the converse also true that all persons born in the Federation after the two territories are integrated will not become citizens of Singapore by right of birth? If Singapore citizenship were granted to all Federal citizens after merger and Federal citizenship denied to all Singapore citizens, then such terms could be said to be humiliating to the people of Singapore.

I have shown, Sir, in the earlier part of my address that if we pressed for automatic Federal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens who are local-born on the same terms as those accorded to the local-born in Penang and Malacca, then our local citizens who have become citizens by residence would have been disenfranchised and this would have been a humiliating imposition.

Would we have been justified in sacrificing the political rights of these citizens to gain the objective of a single citizenship for all persons born in the integrated territories after merger?

Sir, we believe that complete merger will be totally unacceptable to the Federation Parliament, and they have said so. It is being pursued by those who have political ambitions for the purpose of enabling them to stand as candidates for election to the new Federal Parliament anywhere in the integrated territories.

It is obvious, Sir, that any Party which insists on pursuing a claim for automatic Federation citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens, which the Federation Parliament cannot possibly accept without discriminating against its own local-born, does so for reasons which must be suspect. It is equally obvious that conditions for merger can be formulated and advanced by those who are genuinely seeking merger in the national interest as well as by those who are really anti-nationalist and who are deliberately seeking to frustrate merger because they are afraid of merger.

No true nationalist will ever attempt to base his claim for merger on just two Articles of a constitutional instrument whilst turning a blind eye to the rest of the Articles of the Constitution. If he does so, then his intention is clearly not to advance the cause of merger but to oppose it.

Other Articles of the Federation Constitution are just as important on the issue of merger as the Articles dealing with the acquisition of citizenship.

For instance, those Articles of the Federation Constitution dealing with the distribution of legislative powers as between the Federal Government and the State Governments, must be looked at as well as the Articles and the Schedule dealing with the financial arrangements between the Federal Government and the State Governments.

If the Ninth Schedule of the Federation Constitution dealing with the distribution of legislative powers between the Federal Government and the State Governments, and the Tenth Schedule dealing with the financial arrangements between the Federal Government and the State Governments are studied closely, it will be seen at a glance that complete merger on the basis of the Barisan Sosialis' proposals would work to the prejudice of Singapore.

No nationalist or patriot would want to propose terms which he knows would be prejudicial to the interests of the peoples he wishes to serve.

Could we in this House and the Government of Singapore discharge our responsibilities in a realistic manner to the people of Singapore, whether they are citizens or resident aliens, if the powers of this House are reduced to those of a State Assembly under the existing Federation constitutional arrangements, and if the executive and financial powers of the Singapore Government are placed within the narrow confines of the powers reserved for the State Governments in the Ninth and Tenth Schedules of the present Federation Constitution? It is for these reasons, Sir, that we have sought a partnership with the Federation rather than complete merger.

The Barisan Sosialis have argued that we should have entered into negotiations with the Federation Government for complete merger on the basis of automatic Federation citizenship for all Singapore citizens, and should have pressed this demand uncompromisingly. It takes two to make any bargain and I cannot see how anyone can press a claim uncompromisingly in a genuine negotiation.

We, Sir, have preferred to negotiate rather than make uncompromising demands. We know that in genuine negotiations no terms and conditions can be liberal and generous to both Singapore and the Federation, nor can they satisfy all parties on both sides of the Causeway.

We, Sir, have preferred to strike the golden mean, and this golden mean finds expression in the White Paper setting out the heads of agreement for merger between the Federation and Singapore which the Prime Minister has asked this House to approve.

In demanding complete merger, the Barisan Sosialis has stated in this House that it couples this demand with a further demand, that once automatic Federation citizenship rights are obtained for all Singapore citizens, then there can be no deprivation.

In Article 25 of the Federation Constitution, there can be no deprivation of citizenship in respect of a person born in the Federation before, on or after Merdeka Day, but deprivation of citizenship is provided for in respect of those resident in the Federation on Merdeka Day who became citizens or those who become citizens by naturalisation if they show themselves by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation. Is it reasonable. Sir, for the Barisan Sosialis to claim that, assuming all Singapore citizens become Federal citizens on merger, those Singapore citizens who have acquired Singapore citizenship by residence or who have been naturalised should be specially protected from deprivation of citizenship when their counterparts in the Federation do not enjoy this protection? This proposition, Sir, is, to my mind, utterly absurd and clearly proves that those who press such claims, knowing them to be unreasonable, do so because they wish to frustrate merger rather than to advance the cause of merger.

Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have also stated that the Federal nationality that Singapore citizens and Federation citizens will obtain after merger is spurious. There is nothing constitutionally irregular or spurious in political arrangements which provide for separate citizenship and for a common nationality.

The concept of nationality connotes ideas of allegiance to a Head of State, whether it is a President or a King, and undivided loyalty to the country of one's birth or adoption.

It is from this concept that political rights and responsibility stem, and in return for this allegiance and loyalty, the national is protected abroad by the sovereign authority of his State.

This notion of a common nationality can provide the link between separate territories which are under different citizenship laws.

This is the concept at the root of the idea of the British Commonwealth of Nations where territories with separate and distinct citizenship laws agree to acknowledge a common Head of State.

Similarly in the separate territories of Malaysia, this idea of common nationality in a common allegiance to a single Head of State can bind these territories together in a single political unit and thereby enhance its prestige and influence in international affairs.

Sir, I ask this House to reject the claim for complete merger as advanced by the Barisan Sosialis on the grounds that if these proposals are implemented, they will work to the prejudice of the people of Singapore, whether they are citizens by birth and residence or resident aliens.

I would say that, as nationalists, we have prepared a businesslike and practical plan for merger with separate citizenship arrangements and a common nationality. We have not sold out any of the existing political rights of our citizens, but have taken the precaution of ensuring that our citizens will have their fair share of representation in the new legislature of the integrated territories.

6.20 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to oppose the amendment moved by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis. I oppose it not with the object of supporting or strengthening the stand of the P.A.P. - because, in my opinion, the P.A.P. is no longer a force to be reckoned with and they will be finished in the next election - but we do so on the ground that it is of a political nature.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask: what is the stand of the Barisan Sosialis in connection with this question of merger? They want Singapore to be integrated with the Federation of Malaysia as the twelfth State with all Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens. The Member for Queenstown said that the proposals of the Tunku, in effect, would mean that Singapore citizens cannot stand as candidates for election in the Federation and that Singapore citizens residing in the Federation cannot vote, and so on. Mr Speaker, Sir, have the Barisan Sosialis forgotten that if Singapore citizens cannot become voters or stand as candidates for election in the Federation, similarly Federal citizens cannot vote or stand as candidates for election in Singapore?

Another charge made by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis on Monday was on the Tunku's proposal for a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. In this connection. I would like to emphasise that it is the proposal of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and not the proposal of the P.A.P. The Member for Queenstown said that the Tunku's proposal would mean that the people of Singapore would be disenfranchised and sold out. To whom have they been sold out and who have been sold out? Is it the contention of the Barisan Sosialis that the people of Singapore have been sold out? Or do they mean that the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis have been sold out? Do they mean that only the electorate of their 13 constituencies have been sold out? I know that we, on behalf of the Alliance and other representatives present in this House, also represent the people. We have our own supporters. But it is immaterial if I were to say that the charge made by the Member for Queenstown is correct that the people of Singapore have been sold out to the Federation. As a son of the soil, I agree to my family being sold to the Federation of Malaya instead of our being sold to the Communist Party or to a Communist government.

Do the Barisan Sosialis realise the meaning of their amendment'? It means that the position of Singapore will be the same as that of Johore, Malacca or Selangor. Is this what the Barisan Sosialis want? I hope when the other Members of the Barisan Sosialis speak, they will clarify this point.

Let us not deceive the people. Of course, at this very moment, there are many political organisations or political leaders preaching one thing but practising another. On the charge made by the Prime Minister against the Barisan Sosialis, that a statement of the Barisan Sosialis which appeared in a Malay newspaper was different from that which appeared in an English newspaper - and similarly, different versions were given in the Chinese newspapers - I would like to ask the Barisan Sosialis to clarify their position. I ask of them to do so because the Member for Queenstown in his speech condemned the Federation of Malaya on its educational policy, the internal security policy, and so on. According to them, all these policies of the Federation Government are wrong, inadequate, and not in accord with Socialist policies: the Government is oppressive and sending people to prison. Although they say that the policies of the Federation Government are bad, yet they seek complete merger. I am at a loss to understand this because I feel that even a mad man would not speak that way.

Briefly, if we compare the desires of the Barisan Sosialis with the amendment to the motion moved by their leader, it contains poison. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, if the Tunku agreed at the beginning to a complete merger, I am sure the Barisan Sosialis would oppose that too. They would advance the reason that with complete merger, the special position of Singapore would be jeopardised, the education policy would not be guaranteed, and the labour position would be endangered. In my opinion, even if complete merger is offered, the Barisan Sosialis will reject it, or for that matter accept the merger as contained in the amendment.

In his speech the Member for Queens-town commended the Tunku on his policy towards apartheid. This is good. I myself and my Party, the U.M.N.O. Alliance, and I am sure all right-thinking people, subscribe to the Tunku's policy on apartheid. But if the Member for Queenstown had stopped there, it would have been right However, he went further. He said that merger as proposed by the Tunku means that Singapore citizens will be discriminated by the Federation. It is my intention to speak at length on this matter, but a Minister from the Government has already dealt on this matter, and so it is not necessary for me to go further on it. But what grieves me, Mr Speaker, is that the Member for Queenstown has gone to some lengths to attack the Federation Government.

The other point, Mr Speaker, is that the Barisan Sosialis have said that with the proposed merger, socialists like the Barisan Sosialis in Singapore are prepared to make sacrifices. Their leader also said that he supported complete merger because he knew that the position of internal security rests with the Federation of Malaya and, on behalf of the socialists, they would be prepared to sacrifice themselves. In his words, the socialists in the Federation today are experiencing hardship, which means that the Federation Government has put the socialists in gaol. I do not know, Mr Speaker, but what I do know is that those in the Federation who have sacrificed themselves are not the socialists. If that is the stand of the Federation of Malaya, then it follows that the counterparts of the Barisan Sosialis in the Federation, Mr Urn Kean Siew, Mr David, and other colleagues of another opposition Party, Mr Seenivasagam, will no doubt be sent to gaol. But they are free now. So this allegation, coming as it does from a responsible Member without any foundation, is to be regretted.

Another point, Mr Speaker, is that the Member for Queenstown has been repeating "socialism". I do not know what is "socialism", and I would like to know whether his "socialism" is based on nationalism or Communism or communalism. I do not know what is his interpretation or definition of "socialism". Then when he used the word "socialism", he dragged in the Federation Government, saying that this Government is a Right-wing Government, which means that it is an irresponsible Government not discharging its responsibilities to the people of the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, it means that merger will mean that the Right-wing Government will neglect the citizens of Singapore. I can say this, Mr Speaker, I challenge the Barisan Sosialis. I can tell them that although today the Federation Government has been charged as a Right-wing Government, a feudalistic Government, just the same I can assure them unreservedly that although it is a Right-wing Government or a feudalistic Govern ment, yet the administration of the Federation of Malaya is based more on genuine socialism than the address made by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis both in Singapore and in the Federation of Malaya. If we compare the people of the Federation of Malaya to our neighbours, say, the people of Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, Laos, or even Indonesia, it is obviously clear that the people of the Federation are enjoying the fruits of independence more than the people of the other countries mentioned.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dato Abdul Hamid: (In Malay): That is the true position. I am glad to hear the words "Hear, hear!" from the Back-bench. Also when the Member for Cairnhill, when attacking the Barisan Sosialis, asked them not to slur the Federation Government or condemn the Tunku, we also heard "Hear, hear!" from the Backbench - the Worker's Party. When his turn to speak comes, I hope he will not attack the Tunku.

Mr Speaker, another charge made by the Barisan Sosialis is that the Tunku had been influenced by our Prime Minister who had struck terror into the heart of the Tunku, with the result that he was forced to agree to the proposed merger as contained in the motion today. I personally know the Tunku for a number of years and, to my mind, a thousand Prime Ministers like Mr Lee Kuan Yew cannot exercise influence over him. Similarly, a thousand Dr Lee Siew Chohs cannot influence him.

Mr Speaker, what frightens the Tunku, me and my colleagues - and I do not know what the Government side feels - is that one day, on waking up, we might find that the Singapore harbour is filled not with English warships but with Communist warships. That is what we are afraid of. But it does not mean that I have any love for English warships; they have to leave our shores in the not too distant future. It is merely to emphasise my stand and the stand of U.M.N.O. and the Alliance.

Another problem which I wish to deal with relates to my Indian and Chinese friends. Although we represent the Malay community, when we struggle for the fate of Singapore, it is our ardent desire to work in close co-operation with our Chinese and Indian brothers who owe undivided loyalty to the State. But unfortunately when my colleagues from U.M.N.O. and myself speak in this House we have been charged as representing a communal body and acting with irresponsibility. We have also been accused of harping on communal affairs. The reasons are that the speech of the Member for Queenstown on Monday, the arguments he put forward for 7½ hours (lasting two days) - some Members had no time for lunch - are all based on communalism. I would like to ask not only the Member for Queenstown but also all Members of the Barisan Sosialis these questions - whom does the Barisan Sosialis represent, and whom are they fighting for? Is the Barisan Sosialis fighting for the fate of the people of Singapore? For whose interests is the Barisan Sosialis fighting or struggling? I am sure we, who have heard the speech made by the Member for Queenstown and the facts enumerated by the Barisan Sosialis in the newspapers, must come to the conclusion that the Barisan Sosialis do not fight for the interests of the people of Singapore. We are not fools. We are not children. We are adults. We know how to play politics and we also know how to play cards. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I accuse the Barisan Sosialis of using communal sentiments to achieve their own aims. The problem confronting us. that is the amendment which seeks to make Federal citizenship automatic, and Singapore becoming the twelfth state, does not present a problem at all to the Barisan Sosialis. This is a manoeuvre on the part of the Barisan Sosialis. Who are really behind the Barisan Sosialis? Throw their cards on the table. My accusation is not counted because I have heard the speeches of the Government Ministers. I have my own means of finding out information. I accuse the Barisan Sosialis of using communal emotion and sentiment, not because they want to struggle for the interests of the people of Singapore but solely for their own interests. We in the Opposition, the Alliance, cannot take action. Only the Government can. This is the last weapon, Mr Speaker, employed by the Barisan Sosialis, the communal weapon. The struggle of the Barisan Sosialis can be equated to the struggle of the socialist Parties in the Federation of Malaya. I am duty bound to warn the Barisan Sosialis, who are fond of using these communal sentiments - this warning comes from U.M.N.O. and I am sure the great majority of the people of Singapore can warn the Barisan Sosialis - not to use the communal weapon, lest the weapon resorted to by the Barisan Sosialis will devour itself. If the Barisan Sosialis use these communal sentiments as an instrument, we from U.M.N.O. will be prepared to resort to communal tactics.

Mr Speaker, we, as leaders, whether in political Parties or in Government, or leaders in a small village, if we want to he treated as leaders, we should keep our sense of proportion. We must give examples to the villagers or to the people whom we represent. If a leader or a Party does not know his or its responsibilities, and does not know where he or it is going, naturally the people whom he or it represents will be misled, though such leaders will be able to achieve their own ends. For the Barisan Sosialis, when discussing this problem, which is an important one, on merger between Singapore and the Federation, let them forget, that they are Malays or they are Indians, if they cannot forget that, then it means that we must be prepared for long axes or long parangs.

6.52 p.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first pay tribute to the Member for Queenstown for the tenacity and, may I add, pugnacity with which he plodded through a 7½ hours' speech some seven hours after it had really ended? This tribute should properly be extended to his ghost writers who, I thought, looked most disconcerted as he weaved and wavered his way through his maze of words.

Since in this amendment we are dealing with the request that all Singapore citizens should automatically become Federal citizens, I shall confine my remarks to this aspect of his exhaustive discourse. It would be tedious for me to belabour all the points that the Member fur Queenstown made to support his contention that the citizenship proposals contained in the White Paper were a sell-out. The Member for Queenstown belaboured his points so mercilessly here yesterday and the day before that most of them have been reduced to mere pulp.

Now the one point he belaboured was this: that if the Federal Legislature wanted to declare all Singapore citizens Federal citizens, it could do so by law. Sir,, never before was so much effort wasted by the ghost writers to make this obvious point. Nobody disputes that, the Federal Legislature, being a sovereign body, can pass any laws it likes. It can, in theory, enact legislation saying that the Member for Queenstown is dotty. For all I know, he may not he so in fact, but, in theory, he would he pronounced so.

The Member for Queenstown need not have tied himself into knots trying to state the obvious point that the Federal Legislature has the power, in theory, to declare not only citizens of Singapore but, all non-citizens as well, Federal citizens.

We, however, have to devise citizenship laws not in the abstract but in the light of hard political realities. The first point to bear in mind is whether the 11 other States now comprising the Federation are prepared to grant Federal citizenship to Singapore citizens on terms more favourable than they were prepared to grant to their own people.

As we all know, lots of people became Singapore citizens under terms more liberal than those accorded to people in the Federation. What the Barisan Sosialis are asking for is privileged treatment for Singapore citizens.

Originally the Barisan Sosialis leaders demanded merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca - I repeat, Sir, on the basis of Penang and Malacca. We correctly pointed out that the Barisan Sosialis' proposal would have meant that only about 284,000 out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for Federal citizenship under the present citizenship laws of the Federation.

When the Barisan Sosialis discovered that they had made a blunder in demanding merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca, they developed a new propaganda line. They said. "Why not get the Federation Parliament to accept all Singapore citizens as Federal citizens automatically?" There was no longer any reference to merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca.

Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis leaders are really sincere when they say that what they are really worried about is the fate of about 624,000 Singapore citizens and that they are really bursting with enthusiasm for complete merger, then let them state quite categorically that in return for automatic Federal citizenship they are prepared to support actively the Federation's education policy, the Federation's labour policy and give complete control over Singapore's finances and trade to the Federation Government.

It is my contention, Sir, that this demand for automatic Federal citizenship is merely a device to sabotage merger. All this simulation of enthusiasm for complete merger cannot conceal the fact that the Barisan Sosialis leaders - and I am referring to the Barisan Sosialis leaders who are not in this Chamber - are terrified of merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us recollect that the 13 Assemblymen broke away from the P.A.P. not over the question of complete merger as they term it now, but because they wanted the P.A.P. to fight for full internal self-government -

An hon. Member: Shame!

Mr Rajaratnam: - which is a contradiction and a negation of merger. That was the real genesis of the breakaway. Since then they have found new reasons. But let us remember that the 13 P.A.P. Assemblymen broke away from us on the question of full internal self-government and not on the question of complete merger or automatic Federal citizenship for Singapore citizens.

Also, the second reason was that they wanted internal security to be in the hands of the Singapore Government That was the reason for the 13 P.A.P. Assemblymen sitting on the other side. Now they have discovered new reasons If we bear this constantly in mind - that the break occurred not over the question of complete merger, but over the question of full internal self-government with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government - then we shall understand the twists and turns of the Barisan Sosialis policy in recent months. However, Sir, that is a question we shall deal with when we come to discuss the main motion.

This demand for complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship is therefore a relatively new line. The idea is to ask for conditions which would be unacceptable to the Federation so that there would be no merger of any kind. Then the Barisan Sosialis leaders can come forward and tell the people, "What a pity there cannot be merger. So, comrades, let us fight for the next best thing - for full internal self-government with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government."

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): And the I.S.C. abolished!

Mr Rajaratnam: And the I.S.C. abolished. If it is not automatic Federal citizenship, then the Barisan Sosialis would - even if automatic citizenship had been granted - have put forward some other condition which they knew would be unacceptable to the Federation, such as that the condition for merger should be, in addition to automatic Federal citizenship, say, the abolition of the Internal Security Council, or even, as a desperate measure, that the Member for Queenstown should be made the first Prime Minister of Malaysia.

The Barisan Sosialis leaders are putting forward this demand for automatic Federal citizenship because they believe that not only would there be opposition to merger on this basis from the Federation, hut also from the people of Singapore.

As I observed earlier, automatic Federal citizenship would not meet with the approval of the 11 other States which are partners to any agreement. They would not agree to this because that would put them in the position of having to grant more favourable terms than were granted to their own citizens. It would mean not equal treatment for Singapore but giving more favoured treatment to Singapore citizens.

In addition to that, there would also be resistance on political grounds. Sir, in our party publications and speeches by P.A.P. leaders in the past, we have stated repeatedly that in any political calculation, either in Singapore or in the Federation, we must take note of the fact that there are communal fears and communal prejudices. Any solution, however fine and reasonable it might sound in theory, which leads the Malays to believe, however wrongly, that it is an attempt to bend them to the will of another community, is bound to fail; certainly to lead to disaster. Similarly, any measure which excites the communal fears of the Chinese or Indians is also doomed to failure. Sir, communal fears and suspicions may, in the final analysis, be based on prejudices and illusions, but unfortunately, they are there and it is the duty of any practical politician to take these unjustified fears, prejudices and superstitions into consideration.

We have always stated - and this thesis has been accepted and endorsed publicly not only by the 13 Barisan Assemblymen opposite, but also by people like Mr Lim Ching Siong and others - that merger has been resisted by the Federation in the past because of the fear that Malays would be politically swamped by the Chinese of Singapore. This we have stated publicly. and we have endorsed ii as a piece of analysis. We ourselves do not believe that this is so, but we have always recognised that this is a political fact and that many Malays in Singapore and the Federation believe this.

Therefore, Sir, to press for automatic citizenship, at the present juncture, would certainly meet with resistance from the Malays in the Federation. The Ban-san Sosialis leaders are not so innocent. They know that by asking at this juncture for automatic Federal citizenship, they would assist, say a communal Party like the P.M.I.P., to mobilise Malay opposition to merger. If our submission is correct - that what they are really interested in is to sabotage merger at all costs - then in pressing for this new demand for automatic Federal citizenship (of which we have never heard) it is now quite clear that in their recklessness and in their fear of merger, the Barisan Sosialis leaders are quite prepared to put forward proposals which they know full well would help to revive the fading political fortunes of a communist and racialist party in the Federation. After all, Sir, not so long ago the Fajar, some of whose activists have been aiding and abetting the Barisan Sosialis, claimed in one of the articles that the Alliance Government was more communal than the P.M.I.P. When desperate fireside revolutionaries can believe this sort of thing, then they are well past the borderline between sanity and insanity.

In putting forward their proposals for automatic Federal citizenship, the Barisan Sosialis are hoping that communal parties like the P.M.I.P. can mobilise Malays into not only opposing merger, but perhaps opposing the Alliance as well, which probably give some credence to the claim by the Member for Queens-town that perhaps in the not so distant future, the Alliance Government would not be there. In order to attain their immediate objective of sabotaging merger, the Barisan Sosialis are therefore prepared to enhance the political prospects of a racialist party like the P.M.I.P., because they know that any demand like that would automatically arouse, first, the suspicions of the Malays (which we have always said so): that any demand which leads the Malays to fear that Singapore is going to swamp them politically would excite the latent communal prejudices which are always there, and which we must take into consideration. They know that. They also know that the P.M.I.P. has already said that merger in any form is unacceptable to them, so any demand by the Singapore Government that we should get automatic Federal citizenship for all the Singapore citizens would certainly bring into the arena the P.M.I.P. who can then mobilise the Malays who would, in any case, feel that this demand at this juncture is an attempt by Singapore to swamp them politically. So, Sir, while the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are prepared to shed crocodile tears over the sufferings of the people, they turn a blind eye to the fact that their demand for automatic Federal citizenship could strengthen the communal parties and would result in consequences which could only mean conflict and bloodshed between the various communities. Maybe not them but their leaders will say this is the price that has to be paid for revolution. But -

An hon. Member: But what?

Mr Rajaratnam: - the attack on the Federation Government by the Member for Queenstown, the threat that not only do they want a type of merger which they know would arouse the antagonism and suspicions of the Malays, but also the threat that their type of merger would result in the overthrow of the Federation Government, are designed to create suspicion and fear, on the part of the Federation Government into rejecting any type of merger. Supposing the Federation refuses to accept merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship, what then is the alternative? We come back to the alternative which is what they really want - an internally self-governing Singapore minus the Internal Security Council. Have they sup, plied any other solution? That is the inference they expect us to draw; that if we cannot have merger with automatic Federal citizenship, then, let us go back to what they really want - internal self-government minus the I.S.C. -

The Prime Minister: Under the British!

Mr Rajaratnam: So let us not think that the Barisan Sosialis are really interested in what happens to the people here or in the Federation so long as they can generate opposition to merger.

The Member for Queenstown is well aware that his condition for merger - automatic Federal citizenship - would be rejected by the Federation. One of the points he belaboured here yesterday and the day before yesterday was that he was prepared for the Singapore Government to press for automatic Federal citizenship. But he said, and I quote from yesterday's Straits Times, that automatic Federal citizenship "was only impractical if the Federation Government refused to agree on this. But that was entirely a different matter from being constitutionally impossible". So he knows that this demand will be unacceptable to the Federation Government. He believes that it will be unacceptable, and that is what he wants - any condition which would stop merger - so that he and his friends can go back to what they are really after: full internal self-government minus the Internal Security Council. Sir, they always go together, like ham and egg.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Are you the egg?

Mr Rajaratnam: In other words, the Member for Queenstown knows full well that merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship would be rejected by the 11 other States comprising the Federation. That is precisely what the Barisan Sosialis want - the rejection of merger - so that after a sorry shaking of heads, the shedding of crocodile tears, they can pick up the original wan-cry which brought about the break with the P.A.P. - the cry of full internal self-government, with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government, and a British passport. This demand for automatic Federal citizenship is also calculated, as I said, Sir, to mobilise opposition to merger in Singapore as well - not only the Federation but Singapore too. You will have noticed that the Member for Queenstown did not - though he spoke for 7½ hours - elaborate on certain implications of complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for Singapore citizens, it is true, Sir, that he waxed eloquent on the, willingness of Mr Lim Ching Siong to sacrifice himself - I cannot recollect, Sir, hut I do not think the Member for Queenstown included himself - by going to gaol to get automatic Federal citizenship for the people. Sir,I know of no law in the Federation which entitles a count to send Mr Lim Ching Siong or even the Member for Queenstown to gaol if there should be a reunification of the two territories. People get sent to gaol for all sorts of things, but not for bringing about a reunification of Singapore with the Federation.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: We are fighting for other reasons.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is not what the Member for Queenstown said. He said, for the edification of his vast public - which I understand numbers about 200 - that here was this great man willing to go to gaol to achieve the reunification of Singapore with the Federation. This only proves my point that there are certain people who do not want merger because they feel that it will get them into trouble. The Member for Queenstown was putting forward our thesis in a slightly different way. In any case, he is convinced that there would be no merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship. Therefore, his promise of self-sacrifice on the part of Mr Lim Ching Siong and possibly himself is one which can be safely made. However. Sir, the people of Singapore are not interested in whether it is necessary for Mr Lim Ching Siong and the Member for Queenstown to make sacrifices in order to get merger.

What the Member for Queenstown has avoided discussing are the sacrifices the people of Singapore would have to make in return for the kind of merger proposed by the Barisan Sosialis: that is, merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship. He was singularly silent on this point. It is quite clean that the proposal of the Barisan Sosialis would mean the control and direction of education being in the hands of the Federation Government. I ask Members of the Barisan Sosialis - I am quite sure many of them will have a great deal to say, though not as much as the Member for Queenstown, for having exhausted their ammunition, the ghost writers will not be able to churn out another 7½ hours' speech - that when they do speak, I hope they will state categorically that they are willing to accept the Federation's education policy and all that it implies.

The Prime Minister: That is right. We have been waiting to hear that.

Mr Rajaratnam: Let them state categorically here that they accept the Federation's education policy and all that it implies.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): On a point of order. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that we the Barisan Sosialis are not easily intimidated. The fact that the Minister points his finger too often at Members of the Barisan Sosialis is, to say the least, provoking.

Mr Speaker: I have remarked in the past that I discourage gestures in the Assembly, and I did fear that they might be construed as being intimidatory or perhaps provocative. Perhaps the Minister could turn and point to the Chair. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall take great care not to intimidate Members opposite with my finger. If they are of the stuff of which revolutionaries are made, they should not be too easily intimidated, for after all it is a very, very small finger that I am pointing. Therefore, I shall not attempt to point a finger even at you, Mr Speaker, but at myself.

There are 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis. One of them has shot his bolt. There are 12 left. I suggest that when they do make a passionate declaration for a complete merger, they will say that they will accept the Federation's education policy in toto.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): What is your attitude?

Mr Rajaratnam: We do not. That is why we have asked for autonomy over education and labour. In addition to that, they must state categorically that they are prepared to accept the Federation's policy on labour, for that is what full merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship means. Let them state that. They must state categorically that they are prepared to accept the 4:1 ratio that now obtains in the Federation's civil service. They must also state that they are prepared to give the Federation complete control over our finances and trade. If the 12 other gentlemen - after due consultation with the people who really guide the destinies in the Barisan 'Star' - can give us these categorical assurances, then we will consider taking seriously their amendment for full merger -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Did you -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: - on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. It is quite clear, Sir, that this business of complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for Singapore citizens was really intended as a trap for the P.A.P., for if the P.A.P. Government was foolish enough to say, "Yes, we want to outbid the Barisan Sosialis," - we would not only want full merger but we would want full, full merger with automatic Federal citizenship - then the Barisan Sosialis leaders, having nothing to lose except their seats, would go around telling the people of Singapore that it would be terrible if they were to accept complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship and all that it implies. They would say. "Look, this merger means that we have to accept the Federation's education policies: the workers would have to accept the Federation's labour policies; the traders would have to accept complete financial and trade control by the Federation, and the civil servants in Singapore would have to accept the 4:1 ratio."

An hon. Member: The Nanyang University.

Mr Rajaratnam: And also the Nan-yang University. But now, Sir, they are left with that baby. They hope to get out of it by slurring over the implications of the merger that they propose - a merger which would really be a sell-out in the present situation. Or if by some chance the Federation Government should have accepted automatic merger with all that it implies, then the Barisan Sosialis had hoped to mobilise students, workers, traders, and civil servants to resist merger, for they could have gone around saying that the new merger proposals would mean the loss of control over education, Nanyang University, civil servants having to compete on the basis of 4:1. They would hold mass meetings or they would get somebody else to hold mass meetings at which they would say, "In view of the opposition of the people of Singapore to merger, it is with regret that the Barisan Sosialis has decided to heed the voice of the people - which we always do - and we will fight instead for full internal self-government with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government." [Interruption] I am just quoting a phrase that is always repeated by Members of the Barisan Sosialis and certainly by their mentors [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: The proposal in our White Paper regarding citizenship took cognisance of the different interests and of the different developments in the two territories during the last 15 years. In theory, Sir, we approve of a single citizenship and a single nationality for all, but we have to work within the framework of hard realities. After all, no constitutional arrangement is final. Conditions change and political facts change. As practical men, we must devise solutions not in the abstract but in relation to hard political facts.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Without political facts, you are finished!

Mr Rajaratnam: We believe that our proposals for citizenship and nationality have helped to resolve conflicting interests between the two territories without detriment to the legitimate interests of the people of Singapore as well as the people of the Federation.

Sir, one of the points the Member for Queenstown belaboured until it was reduced to pulp was that under the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens would become second-class citizens. I listened to him not for all the 7½ hours (occasionally I got out for a hit of fresh air) but he could not give a single instance of how under our proposals a Singapore citizen was going to he a second-class citizen.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That was why no word was mentioned over the radio.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not mind perhaps an occasional interjection. But when these interjections become perpetual or continuous, then I must stop them. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: Obviously the 7½ hours was not enough for the gentleman to unburden himself!

In fact, it was significant that the Member could only give one instance to substantiate his claim that under the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens would become second-class citizens. He said, "It is terrible that Singapore citizens are going to become second-class citizens, because they could not either vote or stand for election in the Federation." That was his main theme right through. He took 7½ hours to say what can be said in exactly two seconds - that it is terrible because Singapore citizens cannot vote or stand for election in the Federation. That was his major point and that was what he described as a betrayal.

May I ask, Sir, how many of Singapore's 624,000 citizens are yearning to go and stand for election in the Federation'?

Mr David Marshall: Ask the P.A.P.!

Mr Rajaratnam: How many of them would consider it imperative that they should contest elections in the States of the Federation? Sir, I can well understand the Member for Queenstown having to look for a new constituency in the Federation. It may be that the Member for Nee Soon, who I understand inaugurated the opening of his branch in front of a wide open field with almost an uninterrupted view - is losing a lot of sleep over the thought that perhaps the people in Kelantan or Trengganu must forego the pleasure of having him represent them in the Federal Parliament. For some Members in the Barisan Sosialis, it may be a legitimate source of exasperation that they cannot find new political pastures in the Federation. But, Sir, is it seriously suggested that, therefore, merger should be abandoned simply because Mr Lim Ching Siong and his Barisan Sosialis friends cannot stand for election in the Federation? But as far as the vast majority of the voters or citizens of Singapore are concerned, they are not interested in fighting for election in any of the eleven States in the Federation. In any case, the Member for Queenstown will not be deprived of an opportunity to be represented in the Federal Parliament. All he need do is to move from Queenstown to a new constituency in Singapore to contest for one of the 15 seats to which Singapore -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Kampong Glam!

Mr Rajaratnam: Certainly Kampong Glam is a very fatal choice, for I think the Member will have to go back to his medical practice. All he need do is to move from Queenstown to a new constituency in Singapore to contest one of the 15 seats to which Singapore is entitled in the Federal Parliament.

And may I make this point, Sir? It is true that a Singapore citizen, as a Singapore citizen, cannot vote or stand for election in any of the States in the Federation. But it is equally true that a Federation citizen cannot, as a Federation citizen, vote or stand for election in Singapore. If this makes a Singapore citizen a second-class citizen, then it makes a Federation citizen a second-class citizen in relation to Singapore. So if two people are second-class, they are of one class. The term "second-class" would have meaning only if a Federal citizen is treated more favourably than a Singapore citizen. For example, if a Federal citizen were allowed to vote in and contest an election in Singapore, and a Singapore citizen were denied reciprocal rights, then the contention of a second-class citizenship becomes valid. If, say, the leader of the P.P.P. came over and contested in Queenstown and the Member for Queenstown were denied the privilege of being able to go to Menglembu, then I would say that obviously the Member for Queenstown was being treated as perhaps not even a second-class citizen but a third-class citizen -as against Mr Seenivasagam of the P.P.P. But where there is reciprocity, then I say that is equality.

So, in demanding automatic citizenship simply because a few perambulatory politicians - people who move around from one place to another, very often at night - cannot move to the Federation maybe to make a clean start - and the opposition to these White Paper proposals is purely on that basis - then, the melodramatic gestures of Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Member for Queenstown, and perhaps the Member for Nee Soon and others that they are prepared to sacrifice themselves so that the people of Singapore can all become automatically Federal citizens, is a lot of eyewash. What they are really interested in is promoting the sectional interests of a small group of perambulating, nomadic politicians who are hoping to seek better political fortunes in the Federation.

Under our proposals, Sir, none of the existing Singapore citizens lose any of their rights. They can vote representatives into the Federal Parliament. As a matter of fact, we would be having the second largest number of seats among the States in the Federal Legislature. Any Singapore citizen can be elected to the Federal Parliament. Under our present citizenship arrangement, it is also possible for Singapore to retain control over such matters as labour and education. Therefore, Sir, all that the case put forward by the Member for Queenstown over a period of 7½ hours amounted to was this - that this is a terrible thing, this is a betrayal, because it will prevent a few nomadic politicians from becoming, possibly, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia. But the ordinary people, the 600,000-odd Singapore citizens, lose nothing and enjoy new and equal rights in the Federal Legislature and autonomy in matters which they consider vital to their lives and existence. So, whether Mr Lim Ching Siong or Mr Woodhull can stand for election in Tanjong Rambutan is not vital. The people's interests, welfare and dignity are vital.

Sir, as I said earlier, in any agreement it is not a question of Singapore just saying, "Well, this is what we want." It is a question of Singapore persuading 11 other States. So any agreement must be mutual and must be satisfactory to all the 12 States, and the White Paper proposals are agreeable to the 11 States in the Federation. It is not helpful now to put forward suggestions which make certain in advance that merger will not come about. As I said. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis' proposals are all designed to wreck merger so that they can force the people into accepting their disastrous alternative - may I repeat the slogan, Sir? - full internal self-government with control over internal security.

The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are nut really interested in education or the interests of the workers or the rights of citizens. What they want is full internal self-government, so that the men who manipulate them can further the plans which they are not at the moment ready to endorse and espouse publicity. To do that, they must Stop merger at all costs. Let us remember that. Sir - they must stop merger at all cost

Sir, even if the Federation Government were persuaded to grant the conditions put forward by the Barisan Sosialis, they would come out with some other conditions - "Oh, this is still not what we want. There is no equality." And, therefore, they might even ask, "Let there he equal representation of seats in the Federal Legislature between Singapore and the Federation. If there are 100 seats, let Singapore have 51 or 60 seats. Anything less than that is unequal treatment." They will bring up any excuse to stop merger.

In this connection, it would be worth while finding out exactly (a) when did the Barisan Sosialis decide that the P.A.P.'s plan for merger was phoney and a sell-out? Exactly when did they decide that, because that is very important. And (b) when did the puppet masters who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis think up the new line of full merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for all existing Singapore citizens? The time factor is very important

Sir, let me quote from a letter from Mr Lim Ching Siong - I always notice, when I mention this gentleman's name, that there is almost an awe-struck silence - which he wrote to the Straits Times on 24th June, 1961. We had heard a great deal about this colonial paper. I notice that the Member for Queenstown was quoting extensively from on1y one paper. Obviously this gentleman only reads one newspaper in this part of the world.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There is only one English newspaper!

Mr Rajaratnam: Oh, there are two. And also Mr Lim Ching Siong occasionally writes for the Straits Tunes. Anyway, this is what he had to say in connection with - I think the title is-called, "The conditions for merger". He says:

'To begin with, let us not pretend that anyone is against merger. Malaya and Singapore are not two separate states. The present division is an act of the British Colonial Government and every genuine Malayan seeks. a union of these two territories.'

Remember, Sir, this was written on 24th June, though on 2nd June the 6 trade unionists had already, without consulting the P.A.P. - Sir, I understand they consulted the U.K. Commissioner - decided to make a demand that we should fight for internal self-government, which is a complete negation of merger. But here he says, nobody is, really against merger and we should all support it. Then he goes on to say:

'Merger, we have hitherto come to understand, was a thing of the distant future. However, recent statements by leaders of the Federation hold out an earlier promise of the union of these two territories. Encouraging as it is, the question now arises: on what terms will this be effected? The right-wing Government in the Federation and a left-wing Government in Singapore apply certain conflicting policies.'

This, Sir, is the operative sentence.

'This is recognised in the statement by Dr Toh, the P.A.P. Chairman, that whatever the constitutional position of the future, we must have control over labour and education. This is exactly our concern. We have stated that any constitutional arrangement must not mean a setback for the people in terms of freedom. and democracy.'

Surely, no one can quarrel with this. So, Sir, on 24th June Mr Lim Ching Siong wrote to the Straits Times saying that though the P.A.P. had asked for merger on the basis of autonomy in labour and education, that was also the concern of Mr Lim Ching Siong. At that time, Mr Lim Ching Siong did not say that the P.A.P. proposals for merger on the basis of autonomy in education and labour were a phoney or a sell-out.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because we did not know the details!

Mr Rajaratnam: He was saying that that was also his concern. So many of his runner-boys at that time did not denounce the P.A.P. merger proposals as a phoney, but were repeating the hymn that they had been trained to say: internal self-government, and the abolition of the Internal Security Council. Sir, their demand at that time, on 24th June, was internal self-government, and they blessed the P.A.P. in its struggle to get merger on the basis of autonomy in labour and education. Of course, in making their demand for full internal self-government, they did not then realise that they had made a major political blunder, though they were trained as poodles to echo dutifully their master's voice, saying that the P.A.P. was terrible because it was not prepared to fight for full internal self-government.

Sir, why did Mr Lim and his performing poodles take an indulgent attitude, even an attitude of approval to wards the P.A.P. merger terms? The reason is simple. They thought the Federation would not consent to merger on the P.A.P.'s terms. After all, had not Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Wood-hull, Mr Puthucheary and Mr Fong Swee Suan had tea and double-cross buns in secret with members of the U.K. Commission? Had they not heard things directly from the lion's mouth? They thought that they had read the Indian signs correctly, though it would appear that the Indian signs were in Greek! At that time, that is, in June, Mr Lim and his friends thought that the P.A.P. merger proposals would not be accepted by the Federation. So, therefore, they felt, maybe on the basis of whatever clarification was made to the U.K. Commission, that they were safe enough in supporting the P.A.P. type of merger because that would never come about, and, therefore, what harm was there in supporting a line of action which was doomed; in which case they could go back to the original, the real and consistent demand: internal self-government.

Then, Sir, you will notice that then we never heard a single word about full merger, automatic Federal citizenship. Then on 25th August, the Federation and the Singapore Governments issued a joint statement supporting merger on the basis of autonomy in education and labour. The impossible and the improbable had happened! Mr Lim and his friends had once again miscalculated. They had read the Indian signs with a Greek dictionary! I can only guess what happened after that. There were possibly many nocturnal meetings and a lot of running around. What they thought would not happen had happened. So the old slogans had to be scrapped. The top tunes of the Barisan Sosialis singers which probably until then were "Merger is impossible" and "Internal self-government under British protection", had to be abandoned as tunes not in keeping with the times. So it became necessary for the Barisan Sosialis choir to strike up a new tune. The only problem was, what tune? Very often it was clear that they had been singing the wrong tune. Times have changed. The tunes have to be changed. So we can only gather, Sir, that for a period after 25th August the Barisan Sosialis were in a state that can only be described as befuddlement. They did not know what to do. That is best exemplified, Sir, in the "Declaration of meeting of convenors of the Barisan Sosialis" published on 3rd September, 1961. In fact, I am going to read it out, and I hope you will be listening to it very carefully, because -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Speaker will be listening to it very carefully. Perhaps the Minister would like to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the first thing you will note is that you will not find a single reference to, a single chorus from the current popular hit - complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. Not a word of it here. But they declared in paragraph 5 what they termed as "Our stand on the constitutional future". That phrase gives the impression of gentlemen who have decided on what they want. They are standing firm. In fact, it is quite clear, Sir, that they were so uncertain of what was really going on, who was going to win the race, that on 3rd September, they decided that the best thing to do, in view of all sorts of funny things happening, was to bet on all horses, They stood for the following things: (a) for full and complete merger, with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca. This I have no doubt they thought was a very smart move against the P.A.P.'s proposals for merger on the basis of autonomy in education and labour, which round about June they thought would never come about, and have now come about. They said, "Well, this is a counter-stroke. Let us ask for full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca." And thereby they felt that they could counter what they often described as the P.A.P.'s slander that they are not behind merger. In fact, it proved that they were not merely 100 per cent behind merger, but were 200 per cent behind merger. Quite clearly they wanted an immediate full and complete merger, with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca. On the other hand -

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh.