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

2.34 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", this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya."-(The Minister for Labour-Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim).

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, be left out."

2.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy): Mr Speaker, Sir, on Friday I was saying that the Barisan Sosialis were first asking for full and complete merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. But now, when they are told that complete merger on that basis will not enable all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens, they do not mention any more of Penang and Malacca but ask for automatic conversion of all Singapore citizens into Federal citizens.

Our Prime Minister has already said that it is unreasonable for us to put up such demands. I would like to show an example to the Barisan Sosialis how it is unreasonable. Suppose two brothers came from a Commonwealth country to Malaya in 1955. One brother settled in Singapore. The other brother settled in Johore Bahru. In 1957, Singapore citizenship laws came into being. In 1957 the brother in Singapore, who had already lived in Singapore for two years, became a Singapore citizen. Now, on the Barisan type of merger, he would become a Federal citizen on the attainment of merger. But the brother who came to Johore Bahru at the same time as his counterpart came to Singapore, and who had lived the same number of years would not be able to become a Federal citizen. But the brother in Singapore would become a Federal citizen. Is this reasonable or unreasonable? Let the Barisan Sosialis say it. Is it not unreasonable to grant citizenship to one man and refuse it to the other when both have the same qualifications?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was alleged by the Members for Queenstown and Changi that after merger on the terms set out in the White Paper, Singapore citizens will become second-class citizens. In what way will Singapore citizens become second-class citizens? It is no use one speaker after another repeating this falsehood without showing how the Singapore citizen will become a second-class citizen.

The only reason the Barisan Sosialis have put forward is that Singapore citizens cannot vote or stand for election to the Federal Parliament in the Federation. Federal citizens also cannot vote or stand for election to the Federal Parliament in Singapore. Why then is one citizen inferior to the other? If they say the Singapore citizen is second-class, it can also be said that the Federal citizen is also second-class.

I know that the Minister for Culture has dealt with this point, but even after the Minister's speech, the Barisan Sosialis keep on repeating the unfounded allegation that Singapore citizens are second-class, so that they hope that if this is repeated again and again by all their 13 Members and published in the Press, people who read it can be misled into believing what they say is true.

The Member for Changi said citizenship was a fundamental right of the people. Who says it is not? He says after the merger proposed in the White Paper this right will be taken away. How will it be taken away?

The Member for Queenstown also said on 21st November (Straits Times, 22nd November), "It means, in the first place, that if a Singapore citizen goes to the Federation after the P.A.P. phoney merger, he will become disenfranchised and will not be allowed to vote or to stand for election in the Federation." What a deliberate falsehood. Even now, if a Singapore citizen goes to the Federation, he will not lose his Singapore citizenship. Is it anywhere stated that he will lose his Singapore citizenship right, if he goes to the Federation after merger? All these deliberate falsehoods are uttered to mislead the people and mobilise agitation for merger. It is true that if a Singapore citizen goes to the Federation, he will not be allowed to vote or stand for election in the Federation, but he will never lose his Singapore citizenship rights. He will not become disenfranchised. If a Singapore citizen wants to become a Federal citizen, that is a different matter. In the same way, if a Federal citizen comes to Singapore and wants to become a Singapore citizen, he has to apply for it.

The Barisan Sosialis' main object is nothing but to oppose merger. That is why they allege all these falsehoods, so that they can get the people to believe that the people are losing their rights. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I am going to state, how insincere, vicious and mischievous they are in their utterances.

The Member for Changi on Friday said that by the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens, if they want to stand for election, have to have a knowledge of English or Malay, after merger, or else they cannot stand for election. This is true only to the extent of Federal Parliament elections. But the Member went on to say that now, knowledge of Chinese is sufficient, but after the P.A.P. merger, people who know only Chinese cannot stand for election to the Federal Parliament. He said so, Sir. It is not reported in the Straits Times, but it might have been reported in the Chinese Press. What is the real intention of this allegation? The intention is to say that the P.A.P. is taking away the right of the Chinese-educated to stand for election. Now, let the Barisan Sosialis tell us, according to the complete merger they are asking for, can a man who does not know English or Malay stand for Federal election? At least, with autonomy in Singapore's domestic affairs, according to the White Paper proposals, there will be a multilingual Singapore Legislature. If it is a complete merger, there will not be a multilingual Singapore Legislature. They will have only a bilingual Legislative Assembly or Council as in Penang.

The Member for Queenstown on 20th November, talked about what citizenship means and what are the benefits the citizen will get, besides the right to vote. It is also true that only citizens can get permanent employment in Government; only citizens can be given land for resettlement; only citizens can apply for Housing and Development Board flats; only citizens can get legal aid and public assistance; only citizens are given passports; and only citizens cannot be banished. He also said that only children of citizens are given preference to others in schools and in getting scholarships. Thus, he was telling this House of the importance of citizenship. Then he went on to say, "If merger is to have any meaning, then Singapore citizens must become Federal citizens. Only then will Singapore citizens have the opportunity of sharing all these benefits." He then suggested that if a Singapore citizen does not become a Federal citizen, he will lose all his rights. How will a Singapore citizen Jose all his rights if he does not become a Federal citizen? He never said how.

Will Singapore citizens be refused employment in the Government service? Will they be refused public assistance and legal aid'? Will they not get Housing and Development flats? He did not quote one single instance of how Singapore citizens will lose any of these rights if they do not become Federal citizens after merger. He calls the proposals in the White Paper a betrayal, treachery, sell-out, phoney merger, and so on. Even the Member for Anson - though he supports the amendment for various reasons - admits that the proposals are the best in the circumstances. He even complimented, Sir. The only thing he said is that it is not a merger. But the Barisan Sosialis say that all this is a sell-out and they call for general elections. They ask us to resign. I would like to tell the Members of the Barisan Sosialis once again that they were elected to this Assembly on the P.A.P. ticket and that they had pledged to resign if they were ever expelled. Let them honour their word. They cannot just say that they represent the public and that the people are with them. If they really want to know whether the public are with them in their demand for a complete merger with autonomy in domestic affairs, such as education, social welfare, labour, trade, and so on, they should resign their seats and prove their support.

I remember the Member for Changi said the other day - though it was not reported in the Straits Times - that they were elected not because of the P.A.P. leaders but because of the socialists in the Barisan Sosialis who were then in the P.A.P. Except for the Members for Thomson, Havelock, Toa Payoh and Moulmein, none of the present Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen were ever heard of before 1959. At that time, the present important non-Assemblymen leaders of the Barisan Sosialis were in prison. I stress that they were elected on the record of the P.A.P. under the present leadership and not on any other thing. Those who do not honour their word stabbed us in the back at the time of a crucial by-election and helped an opponent to win his election. It is too much to expect of them, Sir!

The Barisan Sosialis talk of complete merger in this House. But what do they do outside? Their rank and file and their agents go to the ordinary people and propagate that if there is merger the people of Singapore will have to wear sarongs, songkoks, accept Islam as their religion, Malay as their only language, and so on, thus frightening the people. Even this morning, Sir, their people were going around in front of my house and putting up posters all over the place agitating for this 4:2 education system. These are the people who say that the people will accept the Federation's education policy. Is this the way they are going to persuade the people of Singapore to accept the Federation's education and labour policies in a complete merger?

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): On a point of order. What is the basis for these allegations?

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order. That is a point of argument.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Read the Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ramaswamy: On 23rd November, the Member for Changi said:

'In the State today, the masses were openly decrying the P.A.P. Government. In coffee-shops and hawker-stalls, the people were highly critical of the Government.'

It is not true. It is these Barisan Sosialis men who talk of one thing in this House and then go to the people to instigate them with all sorts of lies against merger.

An hon. Member: The Straits Times!

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the word "lies" was used with reference to Members of this Assembly. If it was, then the hon. Member must withdraw the word.

Mr Ramaswamy: I was mentioning the agents who work. It is not true that the people do not like merger as proposed in the White Paper. It is these Barisan Sosialis men who tell the people falsehoods about citizenship, education and labour, and try to confuse them and arouse their emotional feelings. Even in this House the Member for Queenstown (the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis) asked a lot of questions. What is the purpose of asking these questions when they know full well that the people will be better off and they will have nothing to complain about in a merger as proposed in the White Paper than in a merger as proposed by the Barisan Sosialis'? Their purpose is to create an impression in the minds of the people that they will suffer under the White Paper proposals. When the Minister for Culture was saying the same thing, the Member for Havelock asked the Minister to answer them as though the answers will show the people that they will suffer. T shall answer the questions, Sir. Let them see in what way the people will suffer because of the merger. The questions are in the Straits Times of 22nd November in a speech made by the Member for Queenstown.

Question No. 1 reads: "What would the civil servants gain with merger'? Would they get more opportunities for promotion in a wider service under the same terms existing or under better terms? Would promotion be accelerated?" If there is complete merger - as proposed by the Barisan Sosialis -recruitment into the civil service will be in the 4: 1 ratio as in the Federation. But according to the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens will have equal rights and opportunities for recruitment. The Member for Anson came to their rescue and tried to tell us that this will not affect us as this ratio relates only to the Federal service and not to the State service. The Deputy Prime Minister has cleared this point by pointing out the departments that will be left in the State service after merger. Except for the Land Office, no other big department will be in the State service. Therefore, in a complete merger, the majority of the civil servants will be affected.

Questions 2 and 3 read: "Would bus companies be allowed to operate freely on new routes in the Federation? Would they be treated equally as others? Would contractors get the same opportunities for business in the Federation as in Singapore?" The same argument as for the civil service will apply to these questions also. Bus companies in Singapore will have their present rights in Singapore in the White Paper proposals. But in a complete merger, the same practice in the Federation will have to apply to Singapore bus companies also. Which will benefit them more - complete merger or merger with autonomy in domestic affairs? Contractors who are Singapore citizens will have preference over the Federal citizens in getting jobs in Singapore. Federal citizens will get preference in the Federation. In a complete merger, certain type of contracts, even in Singapore, will have to be given to Malays. Let the Barisan Sosialis remember that there is a policy in the Federation by which certain types of contracts are to he given only to the indigenous people of Malaya.

Question No. 4 reads: "Would Singapore citizens be able to apply for jobs in the Federation after merger? Would they be discriminated against because they are not Federal citizens?" Even now Singapore citizens are able to apply for jobs in both territories. Federal citizens are also able to apply for jobs in both territories. Preference may be given to Singapore citizens in the Singapore Government and to Federal citizens in the Federal Government. After merger, arrangements will be made to all Federal nationals to be given preference in both territories.

Question No. 5 reads: "Would the products of Singapore schools and universities he allowed to apply for jobs in the Federation?" Here at the present moment, there is no denial of this right. I do not know why the Member for Queenstown thinks otherwise.

Questions 6 and 7 ask whether all Singapore citizens would accept the security risk of moving about freely in the Federation. Except for the people who will try to undermine the democratic Government in the Federation, all people will be allowed to move about freely.

Question No. 8 reads: "Would students from Singapore schools and universities - particularly Nanyang University - have the right to travel freely in the Federation?" If there is to be a complete merger without autonomy in domestic affairs, there may not be Nanyang University and no such question would then arise.

Questions 9, 10, 11 and 12 - all the same reply, Sir. When there is autonomy in labour with different labour laws in the Federation and Singapore, it is only natural that there will be separate bodies of trade unions. But if there is to be a complete merger, are the Barisan Sosialis prepared to accept the same labour laws as in the Federation? Let them say clearly that they will accept the Federation's education policy, the Rahman Talib Report on Education, and so on. The Barisan Sosialis also know, of course, that non-Federal citizens cannot hold office in any territory in the Federation. Non-Federal citizens will not be made leaders as in Singapore after merger, if it is going to be a complete merger.

About businessmen, they ask, "Will they have equal opportunities?" Even now businessmen are enjoying equal opportunities. There is no inequality in the rights of businessmen in Singapore and the Federation. What make the Barisan Sosialis think that there will be a difference after merger? I do not know.

As I said earlier, Mr Speaker, these questions are put only to confuse the people and leave an impression that the people will lose their rights after merger, thus getting them to oppose merger.

The Member for Changi has been repeating the same thing - unequal rights. Where are the unequal rights? In what way are the citizens of the two territories unequal? Let them point out one instance. And without any substantiation, all this propaganda will only mean that they are opposed to merger. And they are putting up these unreasonable demands and obstacles only to sabotage merger.

Before ending my speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me deal with certain points raised by the Member for Anson who unfortunately is not in this Chamber at the moment. On the question of equal treatment for all the four streams of education, he admitted that there was a radical divergence in the Federation education policy, and if the people of Singapore did not wish to perpetuate this difference, a Federal Act could easily provide for the maintenance and administration of the existing education policy in Singapore. What does this mean? This means that he wants a different education policy for Singapore. Instead of mingling words and misleading the people, can he not acknowledge that this is what the P.A.P. wants by retaining autonomy in education? He said that a Federal Act could easily be passed. Of course, he knows - he is a renowned lawyer - as well as we do, that to do this, there should be a majority of Members of Parliament to agree to any enactment of any Act or law. Suppose after merger we do not get a majority to agree to pass this Act. What will happen? Is the Member for Anson prepared to forget about it? He personally may. Will the people of Singapore agree to this? That is why we ask for autonomy in education beforehand.

And for labour also, the Member for Anson said, "Even if Singapore had full labour legislation and policies, there was nothing to prevent the Federal Government authorising the State Government here to exercise responsibility in this field." What does this also mean? Does this not mean autonomy in labour? He says, "Let us have complete merger", and then says, "Let the State Government be authorised to exercise responsibility in this field." Why has he got to mislead the people in this way instead of accepting autonomy on labour, education, and so on? He might as well say, "Let us have complete merger, and then pass Acts in the Federal Parliament providing the Singapore Government to exercise responsibility in internal security as well." Why stop at that? Pass Acts in the Federal Parliament to transfer full responsibility for defence and external affairs of the whole of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore to the Singapore Legislature so that the Barisan Sosialis can change the foreign policy of Malaya to suit them. Then the Member for Anson and his friends in the Barisan Sosialis will be very, very happy.

Lastly, the Member for Anson wanted to know for a fact the number of Communists in Singapore and whether there are really so many Communists in this State. I would like to remind him of his days in the year 1956 when he was Chief Minister of Singapore, and when there were the Hock Lee riots, and he introduced the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to replace the Emergency Regulations. If there were no Communists in this State, why did he introduce the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance? Has he forgotten the Hock Lee riots? Who instigated those riots? Who were behind them? Are the very same people not living amongst us, or have they disappeared? This is one instance, Sir.

Another instance. After the Tanjong Pagar and Cairnhill by-elections in 1957, the present Member for Anson said that he had retired from politics. And at the end of 1957 the Workers' Party was formed with Mr Chang Yuen Thong as Vice-Chairman. The Workers' Party won three out of four seats in the City council, and with an overwhelming majority. Then, as we were told by the Prime Minister in one of his talks over Radio Singapore, Chang Yuen Thong resigned from the Workers' Party and the City Council. When Chang Yuen Thong resigned, there was a by-election in Kallang. The Workers' Party candidate who contested. the Kallang by-election got only 300 odd votes.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can the Member help the Chair by indicating how this is relevant to the motion? Is it relevant to Communism?

Mr Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson asked the other day whether there were Communists or whether there were too many Communists in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have asked the Member to explain.

Mr Ramaswamy: I am only trying to explain that there are Communists in Singapore at the moment.

Mr Speaker: Yes, I understand that. But have these by-elections anything to do with Communism? I really do not understand that.

Mr Ramaswamy: I am going to prove that. Sir. They contested the elections and won an overwhelming majority in December 1957.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may. Mr Speaker, is it not a point of order where the Member misrepresents completely a statement made in this House? If it is not, then it is not a point of order.

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order. But, of course, the hon. Member will have his opportunity if he has been misunderstood or misrepresented. There is a Standing Order which enables the Member or any Member to correct the misunderstanding, and that is Standing Order 43, paragraph (4) :

'A Member who has spoken to a question may again he heard to offer an explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; hut he shall not introduce any new matter.'

If the hon. Member feels he has been misunderstood in a material part of his speech. then he may speak again after the Parliamentary Secretary has ceased to speak.

Mr Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1958 Chang Yuen Thong resigned from the Workers' Party, as told to us by the Prime Minister in one of his talks. He met the "Plen", and the Plen said he would instruct Chang Yuen Thong to resign from the Workers' Party and the City Council. And it was carried out. I am just saying these things to prove that the events related to us by the Prime Minister are all true, and that there are Communists in Singapore.

The Workers' Party candidate who contested the Kallang by-election got only 300-odd votes.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the inference, therefore, that those who did not vote for the Workers' Party were Communists? Is that what the hon. Member is indicating?

Mr Ramaswamy: What I am saying is that in 1957 Communists infiltrated into the Workers' Party and they helped the Workers' Party to win in so many elections with an overwhelming majority. In 1958 they deserted the Workers' Party and that was why the candidate who stood for election got only 300-odd votes. That is what I am trying to explain, Sir. Where had all the support for the Workers' Party in 1957 gone, 111 1958? How does the Member for Anson explain the sudden rise and fall of the Workers' Party in those years? If he does not agree with the Prime Minister's version of the events which led to the resignation of Chang Yuen Thong, how does he explain it? Do not all these facts prove the existence of Communists in this State?

Mr David Marshall: Who said this?

Mr Ramaswamy: Lastly, may I end this speech by asking the Barisan Sosialis on the Opposition Benches to take note of all these events? Think of the future of Singapore. If they want a real unification of Singapore and the Federation, do not call the people of the Federation of Malaya Manchurians and so on.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi) rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way. He has not given way.

Mr Ramaswamy: Take the White Paper proposals as a first step towards the reunification of both territories. Therefore, I say to this House that we should reject this amendment, Sir.

Mr David Marshall: A personal explanation, Sir, under the Standing Order you have referred to.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is once again late. Under Standing Order 10, paragraph (1) (n), personal explanations, if any, must be made before Public business, and we are now on Public business.

3.13 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, despite the fact that we have been debating this vital issue of merger for more than five days, we have people who are as confused as ever in the maze of arguments, counter arguments, and counter-counter arguments, as what we have the counterpart in power politics, the development of missiles, anti-missiles, and anti-anti-missiles. In my speech, therefore, as far as I can, I am avoiding reference to the legal technicalities of the Federation Constitution, or making quotations from it. I will also try to refrain from delving into the details of the White Paper at this stage.

Since there has been so much confusion on this subject of merger, I think it is important that we should discuss the issue dispassionately and without personal rancour or bitterness. Electioneering techniques or mass meeting techniques will not help us to clarify the issue. There have been doubts and confusion on this issue. Sir, the confusion has been partly due to the introduction of personalities into this subject and the petty squabbles during the past few months. All along we have remained silent because we do not want to be involved in these petty squabbles. The doubts have been due mainly to the way the Government brought forward its so-called merger proposals.

You will remember, Sir, that the Government rejected merger talks with the Federation when they were requested to do so in one of the 16 Hong Lim Resolutions. As far as I can see, it was only after the Hong Lim by-election that the Government commenced constitutional talks with the Federation.

Sir, there are broadly three types of views on merger. Firstly, there are those who support the principle of complete merger. Secondly, there are those who accept the proposal of the Government for - for want of a better name - I will call a tiga suku merger. In the third group are those who are opposed to any form of association with the Federation. We can now ignore this third group, because, for obvious reasons, nobody in this third group dares to come out openly to say that he is opposed to merger.

Sir, there have been many interpretations of what is complete merger. What is complete merger? If we have complete merger, if Singapore accepts complete merger, we would he like the State of Johore. All Singapore citizens could become Federal citizens. We could vote about 21 candidates, as the Minister for Health and Law has calculated - and this we will not argue or dispute at the moment - to the Federal Parliament. This figure of 21 can be worked out later whether it is correct or not. Now, if there is complete merger, we would have, at the same time, a Singapore State Government, like the present Johore State Government, with a Chief Minister and an Executive Council. What are the powers of the present State Government in Johore? They have jurisdiction over the following subjects:

(1) Muslim law;

(2) Land matters;

(3) Agriculture and forestry;

(4) Local Government;

(5) Other services of a local character like fire-brigade, burial grounds and markets;

(6) State public works and water supply;

(7) Machinery of the State Government and a few other minor and unimportant subjects.

In other words, if we have complete merger, the Singapore State Government would have jurisdiction in land matters and local government. The other subject matters are of not much importance.

The Johore State Government has also concurrent jurisdiction over matters like social welfare, parks, hawkers, public health, drainage and a few other minor subjects. By concurrent jurisdiction, we mean that the State Government has jurisdiction, at the pleasure, more or less, of the Federation Government. In short, under complete merger, all Singapore citizens would become Federal citizens, electing about 21 representatives to the Federal Parliament, and also representatives to a Singapore State Assembly, which will form the Singapore State Government. The Federal Parliament would have much power and the Singapore State Assembly would have very little power.

Sir, there have been arguments on all sides about what is complete merger. I say to all Members who do not understand what is complete merger, that the best thing is either to cross the Causeway and stay in Johore Bahru for a few days, or ask Federal citizens what it is like to live as a Federal citizen in Johore Bahru - what are his rights, duties, and obligations, and how does the Johore State Government work?

Now, we come to the P.A.P. proposed merger. This is what we say a tiga suku merger. These are constitutional proposals put forward by the Singapore Government in White Paper No. Cmd. 33 of 1961. Under this scheme, there would be two distinct types of citizenship, Federal citizenship and Singapore citizenship. Federal citizens who come and live in Singapore do not enjoy the rights and privileges nor share the obligations of Singapore citizens. Similarly, Singapore citizens who go and live in the Federation would not enjoy the rights and privileges of Federal citizens nor share the obligations of Federal citizens. The two types of citizenship are quite distinct.

Federal citizens voting in the Federation in their capacity as Federal nationals, that is, according to the State Advocate-General's latest explanation, could send about 100 representatives to the Central Federal Parliament. Singapore citizens voting in Singapore, in their capacity as Federal nationals, could send 15 representatives to this same Central Federal Parliament. The majority Party in this Central Federal Parliament could form the Central Government. If Federal citizens come and live and work in Singapore, they cannot stand as candidates; neither can they vote for candidates to this Federal Parliament. Nor can they exercise the right to vote for candidates in the Singapore State Assembly. In other words, Federal citizens who come and live in Singapore would have no right to vote in Singapore. If Singapore citizens go and live in the Federation, they cannot vote for any candidate nor stand for Federal election. In other words, Singapore citizens have only the right to vote in Singapore and Federal citizens have only the right to vote in the Federation.

Under the P.A.P. proposals, Singapore citizens would not become Federal citizens. They can only vote in Singapore for 15 seats in the Federal Parliament. The Singapore Government would still be elected by Singapore citizens. This Singapore Government, as envisaged in the White Paper, would have more powers than the Johore State Government, which comes under a complete merger. The additional jurisdiction which would be given to Singapore in the State List, that is, exclusively for Singapore jurisdiction, are labour and welfare, education and health. And the additional concurrent jurisdiction would be - I will only relate the more important ones, Mr Speaker, Sir:

(1) Banking and loans and borrowing by the State;

(2) Imports and exports, production of goods and insurance;

(3) Industry and regulation of industrial undertakings;

(4) Shipping;

(5) Newspapers, publications, publishers, printing and printing presses;

(6) Administration and day-today programmes of Radio Singapore and television; the policy on broadcasting and television would be controlled by the Federal Government;

(7) Censorship, theatres and cinemas;

(8) A few other minor unimportant subjects.

Sir, in a tiga suku merger, the Singapore State Government would thus have some more powers compared to the Johore State Government. I am bringing Johore as a comparison because it is nearest to Singapore. The P.A.P. Government's contention is that, under the White Paper, the Singapore State Government would have more powers than any other State Governments in the Federation, like Johore. This I do not think we can deny. Therefore, as the P.A.P. Government contends, in exchange, Singapore should accept 15 seats instead of 21 seats in the Federal Parliament.

The P.A.P. Government further does not agree that all Singapore citizens can be qualified to become Federal citizens under the present Federation citizenship laws and, therefore, there should be two types of citizenship, one voting in Singapore and one voting in the Federation, and both voting for the Central Parliament in their respective territories.

Sir, we do not regard the P.A.P. Government's formula as a genuine merger. It is like joining a club as an associate member. This club has ordinary members like Johore, and it would like to recruit associate members, as what is being proposed in the White Paper, like Singapore. Of course, my Party prefers that Singapore should join as an ordinary member and not as an associate member.

The Federation Government has repeatedly said that it does not want Singapore to join the Federation as an ordinary member. It is prepared to admit the Borneo territories as ordinary members. But it would admit Singapore only as a partner, which I will call an associate member. There would thus be a distinction between the admission of Singapore and the admission of the three Borneo States. According to the plan which has been announced, sovereignty over Singapore would be transferred from the British to the Federation. In other words, instead of, at the moment, the British being the sovereign power over Singapore, sovereignty would be transferred to the Federation Parliament. Under the White Paper, citizens of Singapore and citizens of the Federation would be called Federation nationals. I think it will be confusing if we start arguing over the meanings of "national" and "citizenship". It is best to dispense with and forget about the words "Federal nationals". The word "citizenship" and the word "national" are interchangeable, and the important thing to find in each of these phrases is what rights, privileges and, obligations are attached? To show how confusing it would be Sir, a citizen of Johore is called a Johore national. He is a Johore national; he is a Federal citizen; under the proposed set-up he would be a Federal national and he is also a Commonwealth citizen. Johore national, Federal citizen, Commonwealth citizen, Federal national. He would have four status. But the other three status do not mean much except the status of being a Federal citizen. The rights, privileges and duties, as I have stated, of a Johore national derive from the fact that he is a Federal citizen and not so much because he is a Johore national, a Federal National, or a Commonwealth citizen.

As far as Singapore citizens are concerned, the only benefit, as I can see from being a Federal national, is that instead of a British passport, one gets a Federation passport. In other words, there would be no actual benefit from this new concept of a Federal national. Therefore, it is best for argument's sake to leave out this concept of Federal national.

Sir, we have the pros and cons of a genuine merger vis-a-vis a tiga-suku merger. In a genuine merger, we would be like the present Federal citizens living, say, in Johore. The Singapore Government, in a complete merger, would be like the present Johore State Government with very limited powers. We would vote 21 representatives into the Federal Parliament. If we move and live in any State of the Federation, we would also have the right to vote and to stand for election to the Federal, Parliament or for any State Parliament.

This movement of citizens to the other territory is only put up for the sake of explanation, because we would not expect a great wave of emigration of people from Singapore into the Federation or from the Federation into Singapore.

Now, we come to the "tiga-suku" merger. What are the pros and cons in the "tiga-suku" merger? In the "tiga-suku" merger, the Singapore State Government would have slightly more powers than the present Johore State Government. I have just enumerated those powers and additional jurisdiction. But there will be two distinct types of citizenship. Federal citizens can only vote in the Federation and Singapore citizens can only vote in Singapore. Both of them vote for representatives to a common and central Federal Parliament. Only Federal citizens can enjoy the benefits of Federal citizenship in the territory of the Federation. if they come to Singapore, they lose their rights. Only Singapore citizens can enjoy the benefits of Singapore citizenship in Singapore. If they go to the Federation, they will also similarly lose their rights. Singapore citizens, voting in Singapore in the "tiga-suku" merger will send 15 representatives to the Central Parliament. These are the pros and cons of a genuine merger and the "tiga-suku" merger.

Sir, my Party, the United People's Party, stands for complete and genuine merger because the long-term advantages of a complete merger far outweigh any additional autonomy or short-term advantages granted to the Singapore State Government under a "tiga-suku" merger. May I repeat, Sir, the long-term advantages of a complete merger far outweigh any additional autonomy or short-term advantages granted to the Singapore State Government under a "tiga suku" merger?

This additional autonomy of the State Government is more academic than real. I will explain the reasons later. Thus, the paramount issue on the question of merger is that of citizenship. We want a genuine merger because we want to see a united Malaya. We want a genuine merger because it is only in a united Malaya that we can create the basic conditions for progress and prosperity and to effect basic social and political changes for the benefit of all the races living in Malaya. In the years of colonial history, the British had adopted the policy of divide and rule. We have condemned the policy but the constitutional set-up proposed in the White Paper could not defeat such a policy. On the contrary, it will consolidate the policy of divide and rule because, instead of a common citizenship for all the peoples of Malaya, there will be two types of citizenship.

Sir, such a constitutional arrangement as envisaged in the White Paper would not create the conditions for promoting undivided loyalty to the Malayan nation. No nation can be built on two types of citizenship. Instead, it will create much frustration and unhappiness. It is only in a common citizenship that the people of a country can share a common aspiration and foster a common Malayan patriotism. The absence of a common citizenship in the proposed constitutional set-up frustrates our hopes of building a united Malaya. And if these hopes are frustrated, then events may force the people of Singapore to seek their own salvation until genuine reunification is achieved. It is, therefore, my Party's contention that the Singapore Government should negotiate for a genuine merger with provisions for Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens.

We shall take the case of Johore as an example. All Johore State nationals became Federal citizens by operation of law on Merdeka Day. Likewise, Singapore citizens should become Federal citizens. We will then enjoy the same rights and shoulder the same obligations as Federal citizens living in other parts of Malaya. A common citizenship is thereby a necessary condition, if it is our earnest desire to build up a common bond and an undivided loyalty towards Malaya. Sir, it is not correct to say that if there is complete merger only 284,000 out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens could be qualified to become Federal citizens -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Automatic.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Pardon?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - for the reason that only 284,000 were born in Singapore.

Sir, if the place of birth is a yardstick, then those Singapore citizens who were born on Federation soil itself, like the Minister for Finance who has just interjected, and most of whom are entitled to become Federal citizens or had obtained Federal citizenship papers, should have no trouble in being given back Federal citizenship. Then there are the rest of Singapore citizens, who were not born either in Singapore or in the Federation and who had come mainly from China and India. I say that if these people from China and India had been domiciled in the Federation of Malaya instead of in Singapore, they would today be possessing Federal citizenship instead of Singapore citizenship. The requisite number of year's residence is almost the same, and there have been no extra practical difficulties in obtaining a Federal citizenship than in obtaining a Singapore citizenship. Therefore, all categories of citizens in Singapore should become Federal citizens, i.e., those born in Singapore, those born in the Federation, and those born outside Singapore and the Federation. I cannot see any valid grounds why Singapore citizens should not become Federal citizens in the same manner as the Johore State nationals, who are the equivalent of our Singapore citizens.

Sir, I do not wish to repeat here the articles in the Federal Constitution which bestow certain rights on only Federal citizens, nor will I enumerate other rights reserved for citizens not stipulated in the written Constitution. Of course, it can always be argued, on the other hand, that Federal citizens cannot enjoy privileges and rights of Singapore citizens if they come and live in Singapore. And the argument holds good. But the rights and privileges of citizenship are not the main criterion, in my contention, for a common citizenship for both Singapore and the Federation. Of course, these rights are no doubt of the utmost importance. My main contention is that it is only in a common citizenship that a Malayan nation can be built and can be united. Nationalism cannot be built on weak foundations. Nationalism cannot be built on two types of citizenship. The concept of a Federal national would not bind the people of the two territories together, just as the concept of a Commonwealth citizen does not bind the people of, say, Malaya and, for instance, Australia together. How can we achieve our cherished desire? Where is the basis to build a single united Malayan nation on a foundation that is divided? I say it is only in a common citizenship, where all share equal rights, common obligations and destiny, and sink or swim together, that we can build the massive base of a single, united, political identity which should be the subject of our devotion and of our undivided loyalty. Sir, my view is that the constitutional set-up proposed in the White Paper is as far as the Federation Government would concede to the Singapore Government. After the Hong Lim by-election, the Federation Government has apparently been convinced by the Singapore Government that it is in the former's interest to do something about Singapore. But the Federation Government does not want a genuine merger. I ask, does the Singapore Government want a genuine merger? If it does, the Singapore Government must consult Opposition Parties at a roundtable conference and tell us its difficulties. We can plan a common programme to negotiate for a complete merger. But the Singapore Government has refused to do so. It has bypassed all Opposition Parties. It has agreed with the Federation on a constitutional set-up which is not merger, but which they present to us as merger. The Singapore Government, in my view, should ask and negotiate for a genuine merger.

What is presented to us, Sir, in the White Paper is not merger. I remember the Minister for Labour in a speech at Nanyang University said (Straits Times, 1st September, 1961) that the proposed constitutional set-up is only a step towards reunification and towards merger, but not the final step. That would, in my opinion, be honest admission, that the proposed set-up could be a half-way house and not a genuine merger. This tiga suku merger gives, of course, to the Singapore Government a special status, special in the sense that we would be like an adopted child - adopted by the Federation from the British. Under the proposed set-up, the Singapore State Government can only govern Singapore under the sufferance of the Central Federal Government. Although it has more powers - as compared to, say, the Johore State Government - the powers and relationship of such a Singapore State Government can be almost equivalent to the powers and relationship of the former City Council in relation to the Singapore Government. There is, of course, a certain degree of autonomy, but in the last analysis, it is the Federal Parliament that shall have the final and the decisive say.

Sir, I shall explain in the following few minutes the relationship between a Federal Government and a State Government. There are three types of jurisdiction in the relationship between a Federal Government and a State Government as contained in the Federal Constitution. First, there is a Federal List which contains all those subject matters or powers which are exclusively under Federal jurisdiction. A State Government has absolutely nothing to do with those powers under the Federal List. Second, there is a concurrent List which contains subject matters which a State Government can administer at the pleasure and with the general agreement of a Federal Government. Third, there is a State List which contains subject matters and powers which remain within the jurisdiction of a State Government.

Sir, there are thus three Lists: a Federal List, a concurrent List, and a State List. In the proposed constitutional set-up for Singapore, there would be more subject matters included in the concurrent List and in the State List than are given to the other States of the Federation. There is no necessity for me to discuss the powers under the Federal List, because it would have nothing to do with the State Government, nor would I spend time on the concurrent List because it is provided constitutionally that the final legislative and executive jurisdiction rests with the Central Government. Now how about the subject matters in the State List? Sir, a Central Government which ii not friendly with a State Government can restrain or hinder a State Government in one or two ways from carrying out its jurisdiction either under the concurrent List or under the State List. It can do so either through the constitutional way, that is, through the Articles of the Constitution, or through the extra-constitutional way or through both the constitutional way in conjuction with the extra-constitutional way.

Now, in the constitutional way, there are many Articles in the Federation Constitution which provide the Central Government with powers to make inroads into or to check the authority of the State Government. I shall not enumerate these powers because it might lead to confusion here.

On the extra-constitutional methods, that is, methods which are not necessarily contained in the written Constitution, the most effective way the Central Government can act against the State Government is the Central Government's control over financial policy. We have seen how this is being done in Federal States like America, Australia and Canada. Needless to say, there are, in addition, a multitude of pressures and sanctions which the Central Gov ernment can enforce against a recalcitrant State Government.

Sir, it cannot be said that the con stitutional proposals outlined in the White Paper giving the Singapore State Government some measure of local autonomy are not just plain humbug. The complete negation of the existence of such autonomy cannot be conducive to an objective appraisal and a discussion of the merits and demerits of a genuine merger and the proposed constitutional set-up. But I say that such autonomy as envisaged in the White Paper can only be effective and valid so long as the Federation Government concurs or agrees or does not raise serious objections to the general policies of the Singapore State Government. As I have said, it is possible for the Federation Government to revert back to itself those subject matters in the concurrent List. On those subject matters in the special State List for Singapore, which include labour and education, constitutional intervention by the Federation Government - that is, intervention through the Articles of the Federation Constitution - and/or constitutional sanctions or pressures exerted by the Federal Government can bring a recalcitrant Singapore State Government to its knees or bring it into disrepute. There is no doubt, Sir, in my mind, that the final power and authority will rest with the Federal Government. As sovereignty and ultimate authority over Singapore now rest with the British, sovereignty will rest with the Federal Parliament. Sir, the Federal Parliament will be the source and fountain of political and legislative power. No doubt, the final authority could thus rest with the Federal Government which controls the Federal Parliament whether it be a complete merger or whether it be a tiga suku merger.

Sir, it must be stressed that we are not objecting to the principle of a strong Central Federal Government. In fact, only a strong Central Federal Government can bring prosperity and stability to a country. But what we object to is the constitutional arrangement whereby the main purpose of reunification which is to build a united Malaya would be defeated. In a complete merger, Sir, there would be no autonomy on educa tion and labour and various other subjects, but there would be a common citizenship. Singapore State would be like Johore State. In a complete merger, the Singapore State Government will have less powers than under a tiga suku merger, but in my view, the difference in autonomy of a Singapore State Government in a complete merger and in a tiga suku merger is, for practical purposes, not of substantial importance. On the other hand, the advantages of a common citizenship will not only provide the foundation for fostering patriotism and the building of a united Malayan nation but also on the principle of one man one vote the people of Singapore, as citizens of a united Federation of Malaya, can, through the constitutional machinery, play their part in shaping the course of political events for the progress of Malaya.

Sir, the Singapore Government has made a "bargain". In exchange for 15 seats and some measure of autonomy in certain subject matters - for example, education and labour - it is prepared to concede the basic principle of a common citizenship for the two territories. I say that the people are not in favour of such a constitutional arrangement. The people want a genuine merger and a common citizenship.

My Party is in full support of the feelings expressed in the motion moved by the Minister for Labour, because merger evokes a patriotic sentiment and kindles the torch of nationalism. No true patriot of Malaya can help but share those feelings with the Minister for Labour. It is our basic policy to subscribe to the principle of a united Malaya. The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown brings into prominence the paramount issue in merger, which is the citizenship question. In our view, there is no contradiction or conflict between the motion of the Minister for Labour and the amendment of the Member for Queenstown. A common citizenship is necessary in a genuine merger. We support the motion of the Minister for Labour and we also support the amendment of the Member for Queenstown.

An hon. Member: You support everybody!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: But what we do not support is the motion of the Prime Minister on the White Paper which My Party declares is not in accord with the spirit of merger and contradicts the motion moved by the Minister for Labour.

We have always stood for merger. As far back as June 1960, we have asked the Government to initiate merger talks. Nobody in this House can condemn us for advocating merger openly and opposing merger privately. We want a genuine merger which will bring back our vision of a united Malaya where all races will live in complete and perfect harmony. The White Paper will not give us such a genuine merger. My Party therefore rejects the White Paper.

3.58 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown, in moving his amendment to the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Labour, alleged that the Tunku was suddenly persuaded to agree to merger because of the alleged P.A.P. "sell-out" over the question of citizenship. I must say I find it difficult to follow his confused thinking and unravel his involved argument.

We analysed as early as 1958 in our 4th Anniversary Party Souvenir entitled "The New Phase After Merdeka" that there are two main reasons why the Federation Government were wary of merger:

'First: Singapore has about one million Chinese. The inclusion of this one million into the Federation will upset the racial balance of power in the Federation. Second: Singapore has too many "leftists" who are supported by the one million Chinese in Singapore.'

To the Alliance leaders, they believe all "leftists" may be Communists of varying degrees.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Would the Hon. Minister table a copy of that document so that hon. Members can consult it now?

Mr Speaker: Is the Minister quoting from a document?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have it with me, but I thought it is one of those documents that everybody has read again and again.

Mr Speaker: Order. If it is a document from which the Minister is quoting, then, of course, that document should be produced. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to produce copies. That will satisfy the Member.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown, I am glad to say, accepted this analysis of the P.A.P. without any qualification. He signed a statement to that effect. The fact that the Federation Government refused automatic conversion of citizenship has once again reflected the two basic fears of the Federation. Instead of going all out to convince the Federation that the Chinese in Singapore are Malayan conscious and that the Left-wing elements are not all Communists, that we want to be friends with the Federation and not to be hostile to the Federation, these ex-P.A.P. Members now in the Barisan Sosialis have allowed themselves to be inveigled by the Communists into doing just the opposite.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): According to the P.M., of course!

Mr Ong Pang Boon: For by their speech and actions, by playing up to chauvinistic and pro-Communist elements, they have tried to arouse the very fears which made the Federation hesitate about merger, that is, too many Chinese who are China-orientated and too many Leftists who are Communist inclined. The kind of propaganda the Barisan Sosialis are following will only strengthen the Federation's belief that the Barisan Sosialis type of merger with automatic conversion of citizenship was a dangerous proposition to be accepted at the present juncture.

The Barisan Sosialis is of the view that the present Federation Government is in close alliance with foreign capital; it has bound the country to the so-called "British Malaya mutual defence treaty" and turned our motherland into a military base for British armed forces; its foreign policy has alienated our country from the main stream of Afro-Asia, particularly Indonesia, Ghana and India; its internal policies are repressive, particularly, to trade unions and intellectuals; freedom of expression, organisation, and other civil liberties are curbed, and its educational policy is misguided.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: What does the P.A.P. say to that?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Nevertheless, "we [the Barisan Sosialis] are prepared to accept merger under these conditions provided it occurs immediately and is followed by pan-Malayan general elections."

Mr Speaker, Sir, is this the kind of attitude to be adopted by people who want to seek concord and come to a satisfactory agreement with the elected Federation Government? Rather, it openly declares to the Federation the true intention of the hidden masters of the Barisan Sosialis, i.e., to make use of Singapore as a base and the merger the means of overthrowing the Federation Government and set up a pro-Communist State.

This explains their insistence on automatic citizenship so that they could stand as candidates in the Federation. The whole objection to the P.A.P. type of merger is not because the prosperity of Singapore and the livelihood of the people will be adversely affected (in fact, the Member for Queenstown has admitted in his speech that nobody in Singapore will be adversely affected), but because in the P.A.P. type of merger, the interests of a few politically ambitious individuals - the real masters for whom the Member for Queenstown is working, will be unable to stand as candidates and be elected in the Federation. The interests of a few politically ambitious individuals are the real reason why they are afraid of en trusting internal security in the hands of the new Federation legislature in which Singapore will be represented. For unlike the genuine democrats and nationalists, these few individuals, in keeping with Communist theory and practice, indulge in open legal political activities and also underground illegal activities.

The Barisan Sosialis leaders know that even now the Internal Security Council has the necessary powers to deal with these few individuals if they go beyond the limit. In entrusting internal security, a power which has never been wholly in the hands of the Singapore Government, to the elected Federation Government, there is neither gain nor loss to the Singapore people. However, to the Communists, there is a great difference as explained by the Prime Minister in his radio talks: "To be imprisoned by the British colonialists is to be a martyr, in the company of Mr Nehru, Dr Nkrumah, Dr Banda and many other anti-colonial nationalists. But to be locked up by Mr Nehru, Dr Nkrumah, or Col. Nasser or the Tunku is an entirely different matter," and hence, the Barisan Sosialis' agitation over internal security being transferred from the hands of the tripartite Internal Security Council to the elected Federation Government, in which Singapore will have a part.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, or its real masters, know more than anyone else that their proposal for merger, with automatic conversion of citizenship rights (a right which is not even enjoyed by Penang or Malacca) will not be acceptable to the Federation Government. But then, one may ask, why did they put forward a proposal of capturing the Federation Government, knowing very well that it will be turned down? The answer is that they do not want a merger at this stage when there is a government in the Federation which views unfavourably Communist and pro-Communist activities. What the Barisan Sosialis really want is complete internal self-government, even though it means prolonging colonial rule since the British will still be in charge of defence and foreign affairs. A contradiction which can only be explained by the fact that they are only fighting for their sectional interests.

Reunification of Singapore with the Federation is inevitable because geographically, culturally and economically, Singapore is part of the Federation. Reunification has been the slogan of all genuine nationalists and anti-colonialists since 1946. For the Barisan Sosialis to go against the aspiration of the people will be utter folly. Yet, deep in their hearts, they do not want a merger with the Central Government in charge of security. As a way out of this dilemma, they seek to confuse the people with a merger proposal that is not acceptable to the Federation, so that they could fight for complete internal self-government without being accused by the people of prolonging colonial rule. It was, to use the words of the Member for Queenstown, "a sell-out", a traitorous move by the Barisan Sosialis to sell the independence and freedom of Singapore to the British colonial rulers.

The Member for Changi accused the P.A.P. of wanting to remain in power and therefore seeks the Tunku's help. He said that the people wanted the Government to return the mandate. The P.A.P. refused to do so. So they quickly brought about the merger issue and threatened the people with imaginary consequences if merger does not take place. The move by the P.A.P. according to the Member for Changi, was an attempt to enable the "ruling class" to continue their control over the people and stay in power for a further period.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as with all phoney socialists and anti-colonialists, they always speak with their tongues in their cheeks. Far from being eager to remain in office, we were the first to suggest returning the mandate to the people after the Hong Lim by-election. But who were the people who resisted most strenuously at our Party conference? None other than the 13 ex-P.A.P. Assemblymen and Parliamentary Secretaries who are now in the Barisan Sosialis. They were the people who stood up one after the other to oppose the suggestion of holding a referendum on whether the P.A.P. should continue in office. They were scared of the prospect of having to return the mandate to the people for fear that they would not be re-elected. This fear was subtly and effectively exploited by the Com munists. Overnight, we found them, one after the other, standing up for the pro-Communist line of "internal self-government without the I.S.C.", and finally culminating in their betrayal of their comrades and Party. Ever since their failure to capture the Party and the Government, they now demand we should return the mandate.

Let us remind the Member for Changi and all the other Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen that the very people who should return the mandate to the people are the ex-P.A.P. Assemblymen who had defected to the Barisan Sosialis. They were the candidates who stood on the P.A.P. platform and were elected on P.A.P. policies, one of which was independence through merger which was endorsed by the people years ago. They signed a pledge in April 1959 in which they categorically pledged to support the policy of merger between the Federation and Singapore as set out in the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee's statement published in the 4th Anniversary Souvenir in 1958. They also pledged to resign from this Assembly if they were to be expelled from the Party. It is the ex-P.A.P. in the Barisan Sosialis who have betrayed and disavowed P.A.P. political objectives and were expelled from the Party. If they are not men of straw, if they have any honour and decency in them, they should resign and seek a fresh man date on the Barisan Sosialis platform before coming here. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the opportunism and political ambition of the ex-P.A.P. in the Barisan Sosialis have been exploited by the pro-Communists who do not want merger. The ex-P.A.P. Assemblymen have been trapped into stabbing their own comrades and indulging in shameful betrayal of the Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, political leaders who could "sell out" their Party and comrades in a crucial by-election are not men whose words could be trusted. The amendment proposed by these political traitors, therefore, is not genuine and cannot be taken seriously. It should be judged in the light of their traitorous actions in Anson. The Member for Queenstown may consider himself heroic when he said that in putting up their merger proposal they were prepared for sacrifices and even arrests for their political convictions. But may I remind the Member for Queenstown (and the Member for Nee Soon) that they did not join the P.A.P. in the anti-colonial struggle until 1959 when the days of risks were over?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Prove that! Prove that!

Mr Speaker: Order. Interruption is all right in a way, but when it becomes unseemly then it is very disorderly.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: And incidentally, may I inform the Member for Queenstown, and also the Member for Changi, that such brave words have been uttered by many a person in the past, but subsequent events do not bear testimony to the value of such words. I remember on the eve of the second purge by the Lim Yew Hock Government in 1957, the Member for Havelock, as the then Secretary of the Tanjong Pagar Branch, gathered the Branch Committee and vowed solemnly before the P.A.P. symbol that all should stand solidly together and face the coming storm. Brave words indeed! However, when the storm and the rain did come, the Member for Havelock and some of his friends found themselves in the Federation, leaving those of us who have not the opportunity to thump our chest and express our courage and comradeship to re-gather and re-organise the abandoned flock to put them in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, for any merger pro posed to succeed, it must be based on realistic principles and must be practical. It must be fair and just both to the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation. It is futile to fight for the exclusive interests of Singapore and yet expect the Federation to accept such a plan, which is what the Barisan Sosialis amendment seeks to do. It is no use pre tending that the Barisan Sosialis' proposals are practical or acceptable to the people of Singapore or the Federation. The Tunku has said that he is not prepared to agree to automatic conversion of citizenship because of the liberal citizenship laws in Singapore in the past.

Besides, the Barisan Sosialis have demonstrated their insincerity in their stand on merger. First, they suggest the entry of Singapore as a constituent State of the Federation like Penang or Malacca. Since then, however, this demand for merger on the basis of Penang or Malacca has been dropped and even in the 7� hours long speech of the Member for Queenstown in this Assembly, not a single reference was made to this original stunt of theirs. They must have realised after the radio forum, in which the Member for Queenstown participated in his capacity as Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis on 22nd September, 1961, that for Singapore to enter the Federation on the same basis as Penang and Malacca would mean the disenfranchisement of about 340,000 present Singapore citizens. And to extricate themselves from their predicament, the Member for Queenstown spent nearly 7� hours in this Assembly to prove that the Federation Parliament has the power under Article 22 to grant automatic citizenship rights to Singapore citizens - a fact which no one disputes. But the question is whether the Federation is prepared to accept special citizenship rights being accorded to Singapore but denied to Penang or Malacca which was an integral part of the Federation.

The Member for Queenstown said that it is not fair and just if there is no automatic citizenship after merger. Is it fair and just then to our brothers in Penang and Malacca who did not enjoy such rights?

The Barisan Sosialis, being only interested in advancing the sectional interests of a few ambitious politicians to stand for election in Kelantan and Trengganu, is prepared to wreck the merger proposals. Are the vast majority of ordinary people who have no political ambitions of standing for election in Trengganu or Kelantan willing to allow their interests to be sacrificed in this way?

The Member for Queenstown accused the P.A.P. of selling out the interests of the people of Singapore because we did not press for automatic citizenship rights. But what are the interests that we have been accused of selling out? In our merger proposals, will any Singapore citizen lose his citizenship? The answer is "No". The White Paper setting out the heads of agreement for a merger between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore states categorically that "all Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship" and "Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their state rights and privileges within Singapore." Yet, we have the Member for Changi deliberately saying in this House that Singapore citizens will lose their citizenship on merger under the P.A.P. proposals. Whom is he going to bluff? Mr Speaker, Sir, if a man has decided to close his mind to all reason and logic, then you can sit and talk till the cow comes home and you will not be able to make him move from the position that he has taken. If, therefore, the Member for Changi chooses to be a cow, then no one can move him by reason or logic.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: On a point of order. Is it proper that a Member of this House should be described as a cow?

Mr Speaker: The objection is well taken. I do not think we have, in fact, in the past allowed any Member to be described as any animal. Will the Minister withdraw that word?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just illustrating how stubborn some people are.

Mr Speaker: Some people are stubborn, as stubborn as a mule. But even then I do not think a Member can be likened to a mule. Perhaps the Minister will just withdraw and not debate my ruling.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw the word. As I have said, Sir, in our merger proposals, no Singapore citizen is going to lose his citizenship and the rights and privileges that go with it. In addition, every Singapore citizen on merger will gain Federal nationality and will be able, for the first time in 150 years of colonial domination, to proudly proclaim to be national of an independent Federation of Malaya or Malaysia. Perhaps the Barisan Sosialis would feel prouder still if they would remain as British subjects in a complete internal self-government?

In any merger proposal, the object must be the furtherance and protection of the interests of the broad masses of the people, not the interests of a few ambitious politicians who want to stand for election in Ipoh or Kuantan. This is what precisely the P.A.P. type of merger proposals seek to achieve. No one can be so blind as to ignore the fact that as a result of 16 years of separation engineered by the colonial rulers, differences of interests and attitudes exist today. Such differences cannot be wiped out overnight without causing consider able unhappiness to the people. And instead of bringing about merger in a happy and peaceful manner, there may be chaos and violence. The P.A.P., being realists and taking cognizance of the objective political conditions existing today, has decided to reserve for itself reserve powers in Labour and Education and other social services with a view to achieving merger in a peaceful way. The Barisan Sosialis' real bosses, on the other hand, were unable to extricate themselves from their inflexible doctrinaire approach which can only lead to riots and civil commotion.

The P.A.P. way of merger will ensure the existing interests and promotion prospects of our civil service and, in addition, there will be opportunities for entry into Federal service to look after the Pan-Malayan departments.

Chinese parents who want their children to go to Chinese schools will be able to do so as under the present policy of equal treatment for all streams of education, and after graduation, equal opportunities for employment will go on in Singapore. Workers will be assured that the pro-labour policy and legislation they have enjoyed will continue. Businessmen, contractors, and bus companies and taxis will not be worried about privileges or special rights for anybody in trading and business. Merchants will be assured that the free port status and free trade with all countries will continue.

The Barisan Sosialis type of merger proposal, on the other hand, will straightaway bring the civil service under the 4:1 ratio between the Malays and non-Malays. There will be restric tions to the granting of certain types of business and contracts to non-Malays. Many of the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen will not even be sitting in this House and those whose political ambitions lead them to betray their colleagues and the P.A.P. by defecting to the Barisan Sosialis will find their hopes of standing for election vanish into thin air because the Barisan Sosialis type of merger will mean the immediate application of English and Malay as the official languages for the State Assembly as well as the Federal Parliament. The Member for Jalan Kayu might take note of that.

Graduates of Chinese schools and Nanyang University whom the Barisan Sosialis wish to exploit will not be accepted for government service. Chinese school students will have to sit for their public examinations in the official languages of Malay and English, a matter which the Barisan Sosialis dare not talk about, knowing it will be unpalatable to the Chinese school students whom they seek to involve in their united front activities.

The Member for Queenstown said that the P.A.P.'s proposal to give "educational rights to the Chinese here different from those available in the Federation," would mean that the people in Singapore would be isolated from the rest across the Causeway creating new cleavages among the different communities through their different educational rights. "It was a path, [according to him], leading not to national unity but to national disunity and to war. It was a path that every man, however desperate, must avoid."

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me make clear to this House that no one disagrees with him in principle, that the education system in both the Federation and Singapore must be the same to make for one national identity and loyalty. The difference between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis on this educational issue is one of time, of when to merge the present differences into one. First, let me explain what immediate acceptance of the Federation education policy means vis-a-vis Chinese education. This is vital and one which the Barisan Sosialis leaders seek to gloss over in their public statements. The most unhappy feature and one which evokes most heat and agitation by the Chinese in the Federation in respect of the Rahman Talib Education Report is that of medium of instruction and examination. The Rahman Talib Report provides that the medium of instruction in Chinese Primary Schools shall be in Chinese. As for the Chinese Secondary Schools, the main medium of instruction shall be in Malay or English with Chinese language and literature reduced to one-third of curriculum time. How ever, the examination's for the Lower School Certificate and the Federation School Certificate, the two officially recognised certificates for jobs in Government and teaching service, and for further studies, shall be conducted in Malay or English. It is true that Chinese could still be used as the medium of instruction in Chinese Secondary Schools, but such schools would become independent schools, i.e., receive no government aid. All of us will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there was an immediate reaction from the Chinese in the Federation and charges of elimination of Chinese culture and education were made. Chinese education became the central issue in political agitation against the Federation Gov ernment by communal parties such as the P.P.P. and even in the Sosialist Front and Rahman Talib Report led to a split between the Malay and the Chinese wings and the threatened resignation of its President, Ahmad Boestaman. In Singapore, scathing attacks - no doubt heartily supported by the Barisan Sosialis - were made by Nanyang University students in their publication. These were the results in the Federation where the Chinese do not form the majority of the population. If the Barisan Sosialis type of proposal is accepted and, overnight, the Chinese school students find themselves having to learn in Chinese but be examined in English or Malay or be taught and examined in Malay or English in the secondary schools, the position will be catastrophic in Singapore where it is essentially very much a Chinese city.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: They go on strike like today!

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Far from achieving national unity, the Barisan Sosialis type of merger proposal will invite mass agitation and rallies and lead eventually to violence and chaos and suppression. It would be indeed, in the words of the Member for Queenstown, "a path leading to national disunity and to war". As it is now with equal treatment in Singapore to all streams of education with the medium of instruction in the respective mother tongues in primary and secondary schools and also in Nanyang University and full grant-in-aids to schools, some students in Chinese schools, no doubt, forming part of the present political struggle promoted by the M.C.P. through the Barisan Sosialis, the unions and rural organisations, are already agitating against secondary school examinations, mind you, in their own mother tongue. On this agitation, it is also of interest to note that the Barisan Sosialis' official organ gave full coverage and support to it. Does the Barisan Sosialis seriously suggest that it is willing to accept the present Federation education policy immediately? Perhaps the answer is already found in their conspicuous silence on this subject in their open statements and public rallies. May I suggest to the Barisan Sosialis that if they are genuine and sincerely believe in accepting immediately the Federation education policy, they should first put their proposal to the people and seek their support? For us, while we believe in the principle of one common education policy for the whole of Malaya, nevertheless, we are of the opinion that this, being an emotional issue, should come about more gradually, if we are to team from the Federation experience, so that our path to merger will not lead to disunity and war.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that if merger is to be achieved in a peaceful manner with no one losing any of its existing rights, then the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown will not achieve it.

We cannot seek merger by taking up fixed positions. Problems of merger must be approached on the basis of "seeking concord while maintaining differences", a slogan which the Barisan Sosialis and their real masters have dropped, perhaps a bit too quickly when they find that this slogan no longer works to their advantage. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the latter half of 1960 the M.C.P. was pursuing the policy of "struggle and unite" vis-a-vis the P.A.P. Later when they discovered that the P.A.P. was not stooging for them, the slogan of the day "to seek concord while maintaining differences" was mouthed by every front organisation at their meetings. But when they discovered that the P.A.P. was not prepared to accept their objective of fighting for full internal self-government but, instead, was pursuing its avowed objective of independence through merger, which everyone of the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen was pledged to fight for and on which they were elected by the people, the slogan was dropped. Since then they have resorted to unproved slogan like "sellout".

The Member for Changi said that just because they, the Barisan Sosialis, fought for self-government and not merger, therefore, the P.A.P. ruling class accused them of pro-British. The Member for Changi then went on to explain why the Barisan Sosialis demanded self-government instead of merger and be independent. He explained that the British Government came from abroad and not elected by the local people. Similarly, the Malayan Government also came from outside and not elected by the Singapore people. As such, under the P.A.P. merger proposal, Singapore will still remain as a self-governing State with its defence, internal security, and foreign affairs transferred from the British colonialists to the Right-wing Government of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can anyone still doubt that the Member for Changi and the Barisan Sosialis, the so-called genuine anti-colonialists, prefer the British colonialists to the independent Malayan Government? Since the British colonial Government came from outside and not elected by the local people, and the Malayan Government also came from outside and not elected by the local people, why not continue to be a self-government under the British colonialists? Why transfer the power over defence, internal security and foreign affairs to the Malayan nationalists? Are not the British colonialists just as good, if not more efficient? Why fight for a merger although it means that Singapore will be an integral part of the independent Federation of Malaya? Why give up the status of British subjects, and therefore under the protection of the mighty imperial power, for nationals of the new Federation of Malaya or Malaysia?

But let me tell the Member for Changi and the Barisan Sosialis leaders that the P.A.P., as true Malayan nationalists, would rather entrust our defence, internal security and foreign affairs to the independent Malayan Government elected by the Singapore and Malayan people, who are our own brothers and sisters and who share with us the same common aspiration, than to the British colonialists who are not elected by the local people and responsible only to the British people. We would rather carry a Malayan or Malaysian passport than a British passport.

If the Member for Changi is still confused by his own dialectics and cannot see any difference between the British colonialists and Malayan nationalists, then I pity the students under his tutelage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. regard Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as one people in one territorial unit. The people of the Federation are our brothers and sisters in the same family coming together after a long separation by the colonial rulers. No doubt, after 16 years of separation, certain differ ences of views may have developed, but we regard these differences, to use the phrase of Chairman Mao as "the internal contradictions of the people" which can be resolved in a friendly manner. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, who are supposed to be ardent followers of Chairman Mao, appear to have applied the analysis in the wrong direction. Instead of regarding the Federation Government and the people as our brothers and our peoples, they have regarded them as foreigners and enemies; and the British as their friends to whom they are prepared to entrust defence and foreign relations of the State. The Barisan Sosialis, in accusing the Federation Government of being a colonial government policing interests for the British and attempting to subjugate the people of Singapore, have declared their intention to strengthen the forces in the Federation in their struggle against the Federation Government and, consequently, demanded a general election immediately so that they can capture the Federation. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not the language of people who genuinely seek concord. This is the language of war. The differences between Singapore and the Federation, according to the Barisan Sosialis analysis, are not to be regarded as only the internal contradictions of the people, but antagonistic contradictions between enemies. In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to the motion is not a genuine desire to seek merger by the Barisan Sosialis, but a camouflage to wreck merger. The Barisan Sosialis today stands condemned as the enemy of reunification of the two peoples, the enemy of Malayan nationalism. They have become instead the allies of anti national elements. They would rather carry a British passport than the passport of an independent Federation.

4.45 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has said that there has been a lot of confusion. I agree with him. I could not agree with him more. But the trouble is that he confuses us more by saying that he supports both the motion and the amendment. In fact, I am not very sure whether he is not a little confused himself because the motion reads:

'. . .this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger-'

I repeat "in a merger" -

'of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.'.

It does not say a phoney merger or a genuine merger or a confederation merger. It just says "in a merger" - a merger as the world understands as dictionaries or political books give its meaning. But here we have been sitting - I think this is the seventh day - and debating on what sort of merger: phoney merger, genuine merger, complete merger or three-quarters merger. All that the motion asks us to answer is, "Do you or do you not want merger?" If we want a merger, then let us sit down and discuss the motion on the White Paper. If we do not want merger, it is nonsense to ask what kind of merger. What is the use of talking about details of merger when we do not want merger? This motion just seeks to ask us, "Do you want it or not? If you want it, we will proceed. If not, we will not proceed." What happens? We have sat down for seven days and, as you put it. Sir, confusion mounts on confusion until I do not know whether it has confused the Member for Hong Lim so much that he is supporting both the motion and the amendment.

Sir, in the Straits Times of 24th November, page 12, on the speech of the Member for Anson in regard to the amendment of the Barisan Sosialis to the motion of the Minister for Labour, there were very big headlines in the half-inch letters - you seldom get such big headlines - that that amendment gives two meanings to the word "merger". My question is, "Does it?" The answer is "No.". The Member for Anson is reported also to have said that he could not have agreed more with the Member for Cairnhill in that merger could only mean merger - this is from the same newspaper - with the complete reunification of the two territories, and the citizens completely identified as citizens of the Federation. He continued, however, to say that that was what the Barisan Sosialis amendment is seeking to clarify. Sir, if merger means that the citizens of the two territories are completely identified as citizens of the Federation, it would also mean that Singapore citizens would enjoy all the rights of the Federal citizens. It is not just these two - automatic citizenship and the entrance of Singapore into the Federation - but all the rights of the Federal citizens. May I ask, Sir, whether the entrance of Singapore as the twelfth State and the automatic citizenship for Singapore are the only two conditions that constitute a genuine merger? No. There are many other conditions and rights that comprise - what the Barisan Sosialis call - a genuine merger. These two conditions on their own do not in any way constitute a genuine merger or a complete merger. Then why should we mention these two and leave out all the others, especially when on the motion no one has tried to specify any type of merger? And rightly so, why should they?

Sir, if the motion is defeated, what will be the effect of it? The motion asks, "Do you want a merger?" If the motion is defeated, then we show that we do not want a merger. I think, Sir, it is nonsense then to go on to discuss the motion on the White Paper. If this House does not want that sort of merger at all, we must first indicate whether we want or do not want merger. It may be argued, Sir, but it is understood. It has been said several times - outside this Chamber, inside and everywhere - that all Parties want merger, that everyone realises that the separation between the territories is artificial and that we all agree that the reunification of the two territories is inevitable. It may be said it is taken for granted. This is exactly what the motion is seeking to confirm and to place on record. As I read it, it just says, "Do you want merger or not?" It has naturally not specified whether it is the P.A.P. phoney merger or the Barisan Sosialis genuine merger or the S.P.A. confederation type of merger, but just merger as everyone in the world understands it. Had the motion made an attempt at limiting the meaning of the word by saying this merger or the P.A.P. type of merger or even the merger which is under discussion, then probably the amendment is justified; we do not want that type of merger. But then the motion has not specified what type of merger. So we take it that the word "merger" means what the world understands the word "merger" to mean.

We have been here, Sir, I think, seven days, not listening to whether we want merger or not, and if we want merger why, and if we do not want merger, why do we not want it, but hearing accusations and condemnations to and fro, from P.A.P. to ex-P.A.P. and back again. We have beard very strong words used - as a matter of fact, I believe to many of us, the strongest we have heard in our lives. We have heard a protest in the form of a marathon 7�-hour speech and we are presented with a proposed amendment. We have been debating it for about seven days. And all because we were asked, "Do you want a merger or not?" Everybody says, "We want a merger." But we spent seven days arguing.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think for the record this is the sixth day.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: I beg your pardon, Sir. You see, even I am confused! Honestly, Sir, is the amendment necessary? Does it make the motion any more acceptable? Many people think yes, but I say no, Sir. On the contrary, it is not because we do not want genuine merger or automatic citizenship. But if the amendment is accepted - in other words, the motion becomes a Ba risan Sosialis type of merger, because, as I pointed out just now, a genuine merger will consist of more than two rights, and to put just the two rights that the Barisan Sosialis wish to emphasise would make it a Barisan Sosialis type of merger - then it would probably be less acceptable than just the word "merger" as the world understands it.

As I have said before, Sir, merger means that all rights enjoyed by Federal citizens will be conferred on the present Singapore citizens who will be Federal citizens. There are many rights enjoyed by the Federal citizens. If we are to catalogue all those rights, I am afraid that the amendment is going to be a bigger document than the White Paper itself, because I am sure we too have our own ideas of how the people of Singapore should benefit by a merger, and probably all the other Parties here have their own ideas too besides the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan Sosialis must remember that probably the Federation too has its own idea of what a genuine merger is and what the benefits of a genuine merger should be like. If an amendment is necessary to define the type of merger, it should include all the demands and all the terms that all the Parties here want, and it should also contain the interpretation and demands of everybody. Can you imagine the chaos, Sir, if we all start putting in amendments on what we particularly want to stress?

As I have said before, Sir, the only question before the House in the motion is, do we or do we not agree -

'...that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunifi cation of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.'.

If we do, let us vote for the motion. If we do not, then let us vote against it. Or is the Barisan Sosialis saying 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 Barisan Sosialis type of merger? Because, in effect, that is what it is going to be if that amendment is accepted.

Sir, there have been quite a lot of legal brains talking on this amendment and the whole question of merger from the legal aspect. Some philosophers have offered philosophies of the different types and theories of merger. Sir, may I take it from a psychological angle? In moving the motion, I presume that the Minister for Labour hopes that the House will support him. In asking for a genuine merger, I take it that the Member for Queenstown hopes that the Federation will grant it. And yet what do they do, Sir? The Minister, in hoping that we all - including the Barisan Sosialis - will support him starts attacking the Barisan Sosialis, saying all sorts of things about them, hoping that by that means he is going to get them to support him. I do not understand the psychology of that, Sir. And then the Member for Queenstown, in trying to get the Tunku to agree to a genuine merger, says all sorts of things about him and his Government. The Member for Nee Soon no doubt tries to explain that in a democratic government we are allowed to criticise, that he is not criticising the man but only what he and his Government are doing. That is all very well, Sir, but I do not see the need to threaten. The Member for Queenstown wants to get merger from the Tunku by telling him that after a genuine merger the Barisan Sosialis will unite with the Socialist parties in the Federation to overthrow the Tunku's Government. I do not see the logic or the psychology of that, Sir. You want a thing from a person and yet you say to him, "Give it to me so that I can do harm." If the Member for Queenstown is going to ask the Minister for Labour to go for a drive with him so that he will rob him, I am sure he will not disclose it and say, "Look here, Ahmad, come for a drive with me so that I can rob you when we reach a solitary place." If he says that. I maintain that he is not serious in wanting the Minister to go with him for a drive. Probably he does not want the Minister to go and that is why he says that. The threat is put there to deter the Minister from going. Probably it is because the Member for Queenstown is meeting his girl friend down there or probably even meeting someone whom he should not meet. I do not know. But the main idea is that by saying that, the intention is not to get the Minister to come along. So I do not quite see how by threatening -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order. The hon. Member is imputing a very bad motive on my part! She says that I want to rob!

Mr Speaker: That, of course, is just a frivolous objection. Mrs Seow.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Thank you, Sir. As I have said, if you want something from a person, you do not get it by threatening him.

Mr Speaker: Is it a convenient time to suspend?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I shall take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.