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

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."

4.17 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I borrow a phrase used by the Prime Minister? He said last night - he was talking of another Member - "He was eloquent, but what has he said?" For six full days, Sir, we have been sitting here. I believe today is the seventh. Both the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis have been very eloquent. But what have they said? Out of every hour of speech. Sir, about two-thirds of the hour are taken up with political attacks, probably one-sixth washing dirty linen, and one-sixth - this is quite a generous proportion, Sir - probably on merger.

Both the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis have shown that they are more interested in the welfare of the Party than the State or the people. Both have found fit to use a merger - such an important issue as merger, which is actually the pivoting point of the welfare of Singapore and the people - to vie for power! Both are equally guilty, Sir. The motion is quite straightforward. But the Minister, in introducing the motion, tried to make the word "merger" mean the P.A.P. merger. Then the natural reaction of the Barisan Sosialis is that they wanted to make it a Barisan Sosialis merger. Then what caps the confusion was when the Member for Hong Lim, leader of the United People's Party, said that he supported both the phoney and the genuine merger. Sir, this is not surprising because they all came from the same camp. They had the same training and, therefore, they are employing the same methods. All these methods aim at confusing the public.

Another common feature, Sir, with the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis is their arrogance. Had the Minister not introduced his motion with such arrogance and abuse and suspicion flung across at the Barisan Sosialis, the motion might have been well received and more appropriately treated, and we, Sir, might have been spared six days' debate on the amendment - or seven days, including today.

Sir, every time there is a quarrel within the P.A.P., we have to sit here day after day. Once we even sat up to 4.00 o'clock in the morning - just to witness this quarrel and dissension within the Party. In such instances, as in this one, important matters of State have had to be put aside and delayed just to listen to this quarrel first. Sir, this is a disgraceful abuse of parliamentary democracy. The P.A.P. has spent more time here quarrelling and fighting for power among themselves than working for the State.

The performance of the six days, Sir, during this debate on the amendment, fits beautifully into the P.A.P. pattern of behaviour.

You will remember, Sir, in 1959, during their first year of office, the Prime Minister spent his leisure in this Chamber shooting at dead ducks and gunny sacks and in humiliating the English-educated who, according to him, were emasculated, devitalised, deculturalised people, who should go down on their bended knees and thank their gods that their souls have been spared. In the second year, he was indulging in challenging the Member for Hong Lim to fight him outside the Chamber.

Sir, when the Opposition consisted of the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O., Singapore had been warned against Right-wing suppression. When the Opposition was enlarged by the Member for Hong Lim and his colleagues, Singapore was warn ed against Left-wing opportunism. Now when it is further enlarged by the Barisan Sosialis, we are warned against Communism.

Sir, if there are Communists or pro-Communists in this Chamber, and if the dignity of this Chamber has been defiled by the presence of Communists, who are the culprits responsible for it? Who brought them in here? The P.A.P. Sir. The Prime Minister last night said, "We trained them." Two days ago, I think the Minister for Education said, "We nurtured them." But we, Sir, the Alliance say that they shielded them from the law, if they were Communists.

During the six days' debate on the amendment, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have been behaving in exactly the way they used to behave when they were sitting there on the Government benches. And the Government applauded their behaviour. Today when they are sitting on this side of the House, their behaviour has been condemned. But anyone could have told them that their behaviour was the same as that when they were on that side.

Sir, this amendment superficially seems to be one that everyone should support. As the Member for Anson pointed out, do we not want genuine merger? Do we not want Singapore to be the twelfth State? Do we not want the 624,000 Singapore citizens to have automatic Federal citizenship? Of course, we do. But the fact that the Member for Queenstown has found fit, Sir, when introducing his amendment, to issue a threat to the Federation - not only to issue a threat, but also to emphasise the fact that the Barisan Sosialis' intention to join up with the Sosialist Party in the Federation after merger in order to overthrow the present Government -

An hon. Member: Socialist forces.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Oh, Socialist forces - I beg your pardon - suggest that there may be a dangerous hook inside this innocent and attractive looking bait. For those who are about to swallow this bait, Sir, my message to them is, beware of the hook. I make this as an appeal, Sir. Let every Member in this House reassess both the main motion and the amendment in a detached and unbiased atmosphere. Let us put the interests of the State and the people of Singapore before personal or even party interests and ask ourselves - does this motion really need an amendment? - and give ourselves an honest answer to that.

4.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chew Chua): Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been so much talk about what is, in fact, a very simple issue at this stage, and the talk has served to obscure the real question. Do we or do we not agree in principle with the concept of Merger? Months ago, years ago everyone, including the Barisan Sosialis, were ready to say they wanted merger - an unqualified yes. But then it was only a dream. Now it is a reality tabled in this House. Now what have they to say. You would expect everyone to greet it as the achievement it really is. But no; we find opposition. It is easy to pay lip service to a far-off dream, that may never come off, but when it becomes a reality, then is the time to test for sincerity.

All Parties have said they want merger. All we are asked for is our agreement in principle. We are going no further than the first objective. The Member for Queenstown has talked of marriage and of the difference between a wife and a mistress. Well, the period of courtship does seem to have successfully come to an end, and we are at the proposal stage. And any woman will tell you that now is the moment for a straight "yes" or "no". It is not the time to haggle and impose impossible conditions, unless you want to lose the offer. Later, once the union has taken place, then the process of adjustment occurs - in stages - and a full relationship is worked out - a working relationship to try to make that union for better, not for worse. In accepting the proposal, Sir, we are declaring our faith that such a union will succeed, and bring benefits to both parties, as we believe this merger will do. The proposal, moreover, is a sincere one. Singapore is being offered an honest union; she is not being propositioned as a mistress. I would remind the Member for Queenstown that the real difference between a wife and a mistress is a legal one. The mistress may, in fact, enjoy more benefits but they are temporary ones and she has no security in law. This merger is legal and constitutional and permanent. Can you call it anything but a genuine merger?

4.31 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr Goh Chew Chua: What is fundamentally at stake? Do you want independence from the colonial power? Do you want to be reunited with Malaya? These are national issues. The Member for Queenstown and his comrades are trying to reduce them to selfish party issues, even personal ones. This is a cause of the people, not an excuse for abuse and personal smears. Why go to such lengths about the stability of the Government? We are not legislating for the future of this Government alone, or to win the next election. We are deciding the future destiny of all Parties and of the State as a whole. Of course, the opportunists look at merger for what they themselves can get out of it, which is perhaps why the Barisan Sosialis are calculating how many extra seats will be there for them to contest in the Federation. The P.A.P. prefers to act as the agent of the people. They are the go betweens in this marriage proposal - the properly authorised go-betweens on an election mandate. The Barisan Sosialis, having deserted their election mandate, have only themselves to act for. And as to the P.A.P. being too weak for their task, they have managed to negotiate terms with the Federation that two years ago seemed impossible.

At that time the Federation appeared to be the stumbling-block. The block has been removed only to be replaced by one within our own ranks. Having come this far towards our goal, it would seem that the Member for Queenstown is doing his best to frustrate the entire plan. His demands are extreme. They could be aimed at frightening off the Federation. We all know that if you are set against making a business deal, you set an impossibly high price on yourself. You demand in this case automatic citizenship of the Federation, and you do not hesitate to insult the Tunku, because he is a client you wish to drive away.

I submit that the Barisan Sosialis are being deliberately obstructionist. Their objections are red herrings, to draw us away from the real issue. They disbelieve the sincerity of the Federation because the same people who once opposed merger are still at the helm. Yet I seem to remember that they themselves crossed the Floor here, because they changed their minds.

They say we shall become second-class citizens with only a token representation in the Federal Parliament. 15 seats are a pretty big token - second only to Perak and more representatives than the Barisans can claim in this Assembly. It is not very flattering to Singapore politicians and the people's choice to suggest that our 15 will not be able to exert any influence. We can only gain from becoming part of the Federation territory, and for this, we give up nothing. We remain first-class citizens of Singapore enjoying all our previous rights plus independence. In fact, where the P.A.P. have negotiated for separate conditions for us, they have all been in our favour. Far from castrating or crippling us, they give us special privileges over the other States in education, labour, Finance and trade. Where is the sell-out? Where are the losses? Would the Member for Queenstown exchange our education and control of labour for this automatic citizenship? We in fact get two brands of independence - the new political release from colonialism and full nationality, and the old independence or autonomy in what matters most to us. We enter the married state and are allowed to take our jewels with us.

Perhaps the only ones who stand to lose are those who are afraid of the Internal Security Council, but these are not the honest loyal citizens of Singapore whom the Council cannot touch. There is no longer a principle at stake. The Council will not be like the P.P.S.O., an instrument of the colonial power. It cannot be seen as interfering in our affairs because it will consist of our own local people. We objected to the British lion, but we do not object to the Malayan tiger.

There has been talk of sacrifice on behalf of the people. This seems a very noble thought from those who were last heard of looting furniture and sewing machines from their former Party Branches. But sacrifice is rather vain, is it not? Would they not better serve the cause of socialism by joining their brothers in the Federation whom they claim the Tunku and our Prime Minister have a common interest in suppressing? This is surely an opportunity to organise themselves through constitutional means on a pan-Malayan basis. But perhaps they do not like constitutional means.

I come back to my first point. We are being offered a fair, realistic deal for our people - more than we ever expected at this time last year. Let us not miss the bus through arguing about the kind of seats on it.

Do we or do we not want merger?

4.40 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today the question before the House is not as what the Deputy Prime Minister has said. It is not a question of whether we want a merger or not. It is a question of what type of a merger do we want. Do you want the merger proposed by the P.A.P., i.e., a sell-out merger, or do you want our Barisan Sosialis' genuine merger?

Now, let me talk about the amendment moved by our Barisan Sosialis, i.e., for a genuine merger? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me state why the Barisan Sosialis want a genuine merger. Is the Barisan Sosialis afraid of a real merger? Is the Barisan Sosialis sincere in putting forward this genuine merger? What are the basic conditions of the Barisan Sosialis towards the merger question? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, geographically, ethnically, linguistically, historically, economically and in customs and habits, Singapore and the Federation were one originally. However, ever since 1944, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya were forcibly divided by the colonialist British Government. It became part of the British colonialist policy to divide and rule. The arrogant and unreasonable conduct adopted by the British Government in those days aroused protests from the people of Malaya. In spite of protests by the people in those two territories against their policy, the British colonialists still persisted in carrying out their divide and rule policy. In August 1957, the British colonialists gave up the Federation of Malaya and allowed it to be independent. On 1st June, 1959, Singapore became a self-governing State. Ever since that time, the separation between the two territories has become more and more marked. Do the peoples of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya want to be separated? Do the Left-wing forces in the two territories want to be separated? No, not at all.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we the Left-wing forces have never supported the artificial division of the two territories. The peoples in these two territories are not happy about this division of the two territories. Therefore, it has been one of our objectives to fight for a real and genuine reunification of the two territories and to be free from colonialism. This is also the main objective of the Left-wing forces. We believe in the integration of the two territories with independence in economy and politics, equal rights for the people, and democratic freedom. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are our basic aims. A genuine merger between Singapore and the Federation is one objective for which we will never give up fighting. The Right-wing forces should not smear us and give warning to us here.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is my duty to state the objectives of the Barisan Sosialis as contained in our Party Constitution. Let me now read some of the articles in our Party Constitution. Article 1 - to eliminate colonialism and to establish an independent unified nation comprising the Federation and Singapore. Article 2 - to set up a democratic government based on the right of franchise of the citizens in the two territories. Article 3 - to bring about a prosperous, stable and just economic system. Article 4 - to get together the people of all races to establish a Malayan nation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis demand a genuine merger of Singapore and the Federation. This is in accordance with our Party platform and is also in conformity with the interest of the people. Our stand is firm and resolute. We are not weak.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the socialist ideology was born in an unjust society. The socialist movement has had its setbacks and socialists have been prosecuted. This is to be expected and it is not surprising. Those who make use of the socialist banner to deceive the people become turn-coats half-way. This is something which very often occurs in the course of development of the socialist movement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today we are discussing the serious problem of merger between the two territories. We the Barisan Sosialis request a genuine merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The leadership of the P.A.P. has said that we are afraid of merger because we are afraid of a strong Right-wing Central Government. They have also said that the Barisan Sosialis want to make use of Singapore as a base in order to emancipate the people of the Federation of Malaya. All these accusations are nonsense. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to ask the leadership of the P.A.P. whether they are sincere in seeking a true merger between the two territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The answer is, "No, they are not sincere." What the P.A.P. want is a kind of sellout for the people of Singapore. According to the P.A.P. logic, we are afraid of merger because we are afraid of being arrested. They say that we are opportunists. But I can honestly tell the leadership of the P.A.P. that what we are afraid of is that the interests of the people of Singapore will be endangered if there is no genuine merger between the two territories, because the people will not be able to share the same political life as that enjoyed by the people in the Federation. As to the threat that the Left-wingers will be arrested by the Right-wing Government after merger, this is another matter and it is not important. The socialist movement has been known to be curbed. History has proved that the socialist movement has always met with a setback, after which it becomes all the stronger and develops faster.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have learnt from history that those who are really afraid of being arrested are those reactionaries and traitors who sell out the interests of the people. These people pursue a line of holding high State posts in order to enrich themselves - like Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-shek, Wang Chin-wei, Bao Dai and Chew Swee Kee. For the sake of their own personal interests, positions and prestige, these people resort to any means to curb the activities of patriots and sell out the people. The P.A.P. are now following this line in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Left-wing forces of Singapore demand a true merger between the two territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. They expect that they may be arrested and thrown into Changi Goal or detained in St. John's Island. But true socialists work only for what is in the interests of the people and the future of the country, so that the people can move forward towards a more prosperous and happy future. Other things are insignificant and of no importance at all to them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you do not see genuine anti-colonialists and socialists being afraid of oppression from reactionaries. If they are afraid, they will cringe with fear and will not come forward. You never see that happening.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is a convenient time to suspend till half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Indian Prime Minister, Mr Nehru, is worshipped by our Prime Minister. In his struggle against colonialism, Mr Nehru spent many years in prison. The Indonesian President, Dr Soekarno, in his struggle in the past against the Dutch colonialists, had also been imprisoned. The Congolese Prime Minister, Mr Lumumba, because of his struggle against colonialism and imperialism, was murdered. The President of Partai Rakyat in the Federation of Malaya, Inche Boestamam, has been imprisoned for his struggle in the socialist cause. Singapore's Leftist elements have been imprisoned too. Now they are still under detention. Why are they imprisoned? Why do they suffer? For what? What they are fighting for is only to achieve the integration of the two national territories. And they oppose the colonial rule. They seek to achieve a more just society. They are not afraid of death, and they do not carry on the struggle for the sake of personal interests or prosperity. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we the Barisan Sosialis, in our stand for true merger, were positive in the past. We are positive at present, and in future we will also bepositive in our stand.

Mr Speaker, according to the Prime Minister's speech, we are not sincere in our demand for true merger. He said we are purposely trying to embarrass the Government. He also said that we are afraid of the Right-wing Government in the Federation. Mr Speaker, for a non-Communist, socialist leader of the P.A.P. to make such childish utterances is a very sad thing. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are capable young men who lack experience. Yes, we are still young. We do not have experience in deceiving the people. We congratulate our Prime Minister for his experience in this respect, a very rich experience. But I regret that a person with several years - of experience of the so-called non-Communist, socialist struggle cannot understand the true meaning of socialism and the development of the socialist movement. Perhaps the Prime Minister has tried to suppress the growth of the socialist movement. But I can honestly tell the Prime Minister that, according to the facts of history and my personal experience which I have gained from study and learning, the socialist movement is not based on race, creed, religion, colour, or any form of barrier. There is no barrier. As long as there is unreasonableness in society, the germ of socialism will grow into a plant and flower and bring forth fruit. Because if these unreasonable conditions in society, the people become poorer and poorer everyday and they are deprived of their democratic rights. All these harsh facts of practical life clearly tell the people that they must reform the society in which they live.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member could possibly touch on socialism just on the surface to make his point. But if he goes into details, then, of course, he is debating socialism. We are not debating socialism at the moment. We are debating merger. As I said, all he need do is to touch on the fringe of socialism and make his point in that way, but he must not go into details.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall return to the main subject. The Left-wing movement in the territories of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore existed during the colonial era. Before the establishment of the P.A.P. in 1954, there was already a socialist movement. And there was socialism before I was born. All along the Left-wing movement-had met with oppression and attacks from all reactionary forces. The Left-wing movement could still exist under such conditions and expand. Does it mean that the reactionary forces of oppression could curb the Left-wing movement? No. They cannot do so. The truth of the matter is that the socialist movement moves according to history, which propels the socialist movement forward, and in its natural course it develops.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although at present in the Federation there is a strong Right-wing government suppressing the Left-wing movement, our socialist comrades, under the banner of the Socialist Front, are now strengthening and expanding their forces and they have extended their influence to every city, town and rural kampong. The prospects for the future of socialism are very bright. Socialism is on the march. Although the Socialist Front is in opposition in the Federation at present, the oppression of socialist elements there was no better than under colonial rule. All this could not stop the Socialist Front from developing. It cannot stop the cause of socialism. In Singapore the Left-wing strength has been attacked by the oppression of this so-called non-Communist, socialist Government. The democratic rights of the people have been curbed by the Government. Unreasonable laws have been passed. They are more stringent -

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member to come back to the motion. All this, to my mind, is more than irrelevant. It is opening out a debate-that has nothing at all to do with the merger motion before the House.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was explaining to you why we, the Barisan Sosialis, want genuine merger. But the Government says we are afraid of merger because we are afraid of being curbed and oppressed by the Right-wing Government in the Federation. Therefore, I have mentioned all these facts and reasons to prove that in moving our amendment, we are very sincere in asking what we want. What we want is genuine merger and not a phoney merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rapid development and progress of the Barisan Sosialis in Singapore has struck fear in the heart of the P.A.P. Government. Therefore, no matter how bad the circumstances are, the socialist movement can still exist and develop. For instance, the Pahang River must flow out into the South China Sea. The Rivet Nile must flow out into the Mediterranean Sea. The River Thames must flow out into the English Channel. That is a course nobody can stop or alter. Therefore, no matter what kind of oppression or curb is imposed upon it., the socialist movement can still endure and progress. All these efforts at suppression will be wasted. People in the end will tell the oppressors what the result will be.

Mr Speaker, we the Barisan Sosialis demand a genuine merger. We are ready at any time to suffer the same fate as our comrades in the Federation. We want to struggle for the same aim-and the same objective as long as the people of Singapore and the Federation live the same political life and share and enjoy the same citizenship rights.. The socialist movement will have nothing to fear. Only those who do not like to see the socialist movement progress will be afraid. Only these people will think of ways to deprive the citizens of Singapore of their citizenship rights. By this they have been exposed as phoney socialists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since its formation, the Barisan Sosialis, has never altered its stand in regard to merger of the two territories. We do not want to change our stand now. The stand will also not be changed in the future. In this respect the P.A.P. dare not criticise us. They can only allege hypocritically that we are trying to embarrass the Government and that we are afraid of merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of history, you can never find any true socialists who are opposed to true unification of the territories into one nation. On the other hand, true socialists will go through fire and water to achieve the unification of the territories and unity of the country. They will fight very hard to achieve this aim. I cannot understand the so-called non-Communist, socialist P.A.P. leadership. They are now looking at everything through coloured glasses. They also look through coloured glasses at this very important issue.

Mr Speaker, we the Barisan Sosialis have proposed this amendment in order to demand a genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya We do this out of sincerity and honesty We do this in the interests of all the people. If the people of the two territories can truly merge and be united, it does not matter if we socialists have to make sacrifices. It is worth our sacrifices. I hope that hon. Members in this House can understand our sincerity, and not try to slander, to smear and to indulge in mud-slinging for the interests of their own Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis' basic principles in regard to merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya are:

(1) A genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya;

(2) Singapore becoming the twelfth State of the Federation of Malaya;

(3) The present Singapore citizens automatically become citizens of the Federation on Merger Day;

(4) Singapore citizens can freely take part in elections in any part in the Federation. Of course, any citizen from the Federation can also come to Singapore to take part in elections.

In one word, Mr Speaker, we ask that after merger of the two territories, the people of the two territories will be able to enjoy equal political life. This is the basic attitude of the Barisan Sosialis towards merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question before us is not whether we want a merger, but whether we want a genuine merger or a phoney merger, that is, a sell-out merger. The Barisan Sosialis want to achieve a genuine merger. But the P.A.P. are opposed to this genuine merger. The Barisan Sosialis demand that all the Singapore citizens should become the citizens of the new Federation after Merger Day. But the P.A.P. want to give up the over 600,000 citizens of Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis demand that after true merger Singapore will become the twelfth State of the new Federation. But the P.A.P. want Singapore to become only a partner in the Federation. The Barisan Sosialis: want the citizens of the new Federation to be able to stand for election in any State in the new Federation. But the P.A.P. only want the citizens of Singapore to be able to stand for election only in Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis demand that there should be proportional representation in the Federal Parliament. But the P.A.P. want to determine the number of representatives after taking into consideration the fact that Singapore will have autonomy in labour and education and how much Singapore will have to contribute to the Federation Government. Mr Speaker, these are the basic differences in our demand for merger.

Mr Speaker, on the question of merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, I wish to give an analogy here. Let me take the example of an integrated school introduced by the Government. But it does not mean that the management of integrated schools is being carried out very well. I mean to say, the rights of the students in this school are equal. Therefore, this can help us to understand what will happen after the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. The rights and obligations of the citizens of the two territories should also be equal.

Mr Speaker, you know that the Government has integrated students from the Chinese stream of education with students from the English stream into one school. Students from the two streams of education were in the past separated in different schools. The students had their respective obligations and rights in their respective schools. They had their respective principals in their schools. But now when they are integrated into one school, they go to the same school. This integrated school has one principal. There is only one school song. The students go to different classes to attend their lessons. The students have the right to carry out various activities in the same playground. They use the same auditorium and the same library. They use the same Physics laboratory and they can also use the same microscope. They can use the same music hail. They can have equal access to the Arts room. Not only have they the right to use the same facilities provided by the school and have the same rights, but what is important is that everyone of them has an equal right with the other. They also have the right to elect their representatives to the students body, for instance, the Historical Society, the Geographical Society, the Film Society, the Photographic Study Society, the Sports Society and others.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: On a point of order. Have the schools or the students mentioned in these examples any connection with this amendment?

Mr Speaker: Order. I understood the Member for Choa Chu Kang to say that he was drawing an analogy between an integrated school and the reunification of the two territories. But perhaps the Member for Choa Chu Kang does realise that he is going into too many details. Whatever he has said could have been said in one minute.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been trying to help you and our friends opposite to understand what is the true meaning of a genuine merger. Now let me continue. I: does not matter from which school the students come. They have the same rights and obligations to elect their representatives to be responsible for various kinds of offices. Every student can stand for election as an office-bearer of any student body.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the students in the school enjoy the same rights and obligations. In this way the school can be said to be a genuine integrated school. We can also call it a genuine merger. If the students do not enjoy the same rights and do not have equal obligations, where then is the equality? If there is no equality, how can we talk about merger?

Mr Speaker, a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya is just like the analogy I have mentioned. It is just like an integrated school. The basic question is that of equal rights. In other words, after merger the present citizens of Singapore must become the citizens of the new Federation.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I draw the attention of the Member for Choa Chu Kang to the fact that he has been repeating himself about three or four times, and that there is a Standing Order which says that if repetition becomes tedious, the Speaker will draw attention to that fact and then, if the Member still persists in tedious repetition, he will request the Member to cease his speech. We must not have too much repetition.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just about to end my speech. If there are no such rights, then it is no use for us to talk about autonomy. What kind of merger will that be then? Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a very good Chinese proverb which goes like this, "If there is no skin, where can the hair grow?" The meaning is that there is no place to grow any hair. If there is only hair, but no skin, what is the use of the hair then? Therefore, in talking about a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, the same reason obtains if, after merger, Singapore citizens can automatically become citizens of the Federation. It is as important as the skin on the body. Citizenship rights and autonomy in labour and education are just like our hair. They are unimportant. This analogy tells us that if we do not solve the basic problems, but instead, deal with minor, irrelevant and unimportant things and split hairs over minor details, then it will be a waste of time and energy. We cannot get any benefit out of it. On the other hand, we will incur a loss as a result of wasting our energy and time on those minor issues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me quote from the Nanyang Siang Pau of 22nd November, in which the person who occupies the second seat on the Government Bench, namely, the Minister for Finance, in replying to my colleague, the Member for Queenstown, on the 21st November, said, "Why do the Barisan Sosialis want to quarrel over these small issues?" These "small issues" are citizenship rights. The so-called "small issues" to him are citizenship rights and things like that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the basic principles of the Barisan Sosialis in regard to merger is that this should not endanger the present position of Singapore citizens. The type of merger should not degrade the status and the rights of the present Singapore citizens. But the Minister for Finance said that these questions were unimportant. I wish to ask the Minister for Finance whether he does remember that the people of Singapore had fought hard to acquire their citizenship?

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta) rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Madam Chan Choy Siong indicated assent.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said (just now) that the Minister for Finance said that citizenship rights were unimportant. I think he is distorting the facts. Citizenship rights can be acquired by a constitutional arrangement. It does not mean that the question of citizenship rights is unimportant.

Mr Speaker: That, I must tell the hon. Lady, is not a point of order. It is an argument. I shall look forward to hearing her speak in due course.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): I mention all this only to help our friends opposite think. Does the Minister for Finance know that the 320,000 citizens of Singapore have grown up on the soil of Malaya? What must we degrade them to the position of second-class citizens? Does it mean that "citizenship" is an academic phrase or word? Mr Speaker, Sir, I use the word "academic" because the Minister for Finance has said that this is a question pertaining to an academic exercise. Perhaps I do not understand what is meant by an "academic exercise". The Minister for Finance is a Doctor of economics. He knows that the word "citizenship" is academic. It is not realistic and practical; therefore, it is not important. I wish to advise the Minister for Finance that if he wants to chop off his own head just because of an academic word, we are not concerned. But he must not chop off the citizenship rights of over 600,000 citizens of Singapore because of this academic word. This is what the Singapore people cannot tolerate and let him do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the highest legislative authority in Singapore is this House. May I ask who elected the Member for Kreta Ayer? The people of Singapore -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Kreta Ayer is the Minister for Finance, if I am not mistaken. He must be referred to as the Minister for Finance.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): I will take your advice, Mr Speaker. Let me repeat. May I ask who elected the Minister for Finance? The answer is the citizens of Singapore. Who elected the Prime Minister? The answer is the citizens of Singapore. Who elected the Minister for Culture? The answer is the citizens of Singapore. Who elected all the Assemblymen in this House? The answer is the citizens of Singapore. Who elected the P.A.P. Government? The answer is also the citizens of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to be Singapore citizens to attend primary and secondary schools, the University and technical school. One has to be a Singapore citizen to apply for scholarships or bursaries, and registration for employment as a seaman. One has also got to be a Singapore citizen to get registered for any job, apply for a Government post or be a member of the Work Brigade. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to enumerate any more examples. From this, we can clearly see that the question of citizenship supersedes all other questions. One cannot do anything without a citizenship. It is just like the Monkey King who cannot jump across the five fingers of the Buddha.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you can understand more than I do. This House is the highest legislative authority in Singapore: but after merger, the highest legislative authority will be moved across the Causeway to Kuala Lumpur. It will not remain in Empress Place any more. The authority will be removed to Kuala Lumpur, just like Malacca and Penang. Therefore, the present Singapore citizens should be like the citizens of all the States in the Federation and have proportionate representation in the Central Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. The necessary right of the present Singapore citizens -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng) rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Chan Chee Seng: On a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Chang Sam resumed his seat.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): The Member for Choa Chu Kang has just now pointed out so many things about citizenship. It does not mean that half of the citizens here will lose their citizenship rights after merger. That is why we want the Member for Choa Chu Kang to clarify this point.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): If the Member for Jalan Besar goes back to his constituency and asks the electors there -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Jalan Besar is now a Parliamentary Secretary and he must be referred to as a Parliamentary Secretary. He has asked the question for clarification, and perhaps the Member would like to clarify. But if he does not wish to clarify, he can say he does not wish to clarify.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): I have forgotten that he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance is able to go to Fraser's Hill to take part in the election, and the Prime Minister will be able to go to Cameron Highlands to stand for election -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know how all this is relevant to the merger debate. All these personalities are completely unnecessary and irrelevant.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): On a point of clarification.

Mr Ong Chang Sam resumed his seat.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): I remember during the time when the Member for Choa Chu Kang was living with us in Fort Canning Hill, he always went up to Cameron Highlands.

Mr Speaker: Order. Now we find the Parliamentary Secretary is out of order. That is not a point of clarification. Let us come to the motion. Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to give a correct reply to the hon. Member. I do not know what the scenery in Cameron Highlands looks like.

Let me return to the subject. After a real merger between Singapore and the Federation, any citizen in the Federation will be able to stand for election in Singapore. But the P.A.P. is not prepared to fight for the basic citizenship rights of the people of Singapore. They only fight for the interests of a few people in their Party and they sell out the interests of the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we want a genuine merger but the P.A.P. claim that their type of merger will bring more benefits to the people of Singapore. What are these benefits? We ask the P.A.P. to tell us what these benefits are. As far as I know, there will be another Prime Minister in Singapore. This is the dream of our Prime Minister. There will be another national anthem, another national flag, and other so-called national rights. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we have all these things, does it mean that we have a genuine merger? Does it mean that our problems will be solved if we have national rights? "National rights" is the registered trademark of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. tries to mislead the people by covering up the mistakes of their regime which is going to perish. The P.A.P. hopes to mislead and obscure the vision of the people by giving them national rights. They want to make the people believe that they will not only retain their citizenship rights but they will also get national rights, and that what they are fighting for is more than what the Barisan Sosialis are fighting for so as to deceive the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. think that the citizens of Singapore will be as foolish as a bear and that they can be easily misled. The fox and the bear with a short tail -

Inche M. Ismail Rahim (Geylang East) rose -

Mr Ong Chang Sam resumed his seat.

Inche Ismail Rahim: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand what bear the hon. Member is referring to. Is it a parliamentary word that can be used, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I do not think the Member for Choa Chu Kang alleged that any Member of this Assembly is a bear. He was likening the people of Singapore to bears. If the hon. Member likens any Member of the Assembly to a bear, then of course he is out of order. Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not say that our friends opposite are foxes or bears. I am trying to help you understand the analogy I mentioned just now. In Northern Europe, there is a very meaningful folk story.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member is becoming a little tedious. He is now repeating his theme of analogies in other parts of his speech. I think he will be well advised to wind up his speech. Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall shorten my speech. The cunning tricks adopted by the P.A.P. through its radio and Press conferences are intended to confuse the people. It tells the people that the time has now come for them to grab the chance of a merger between Singapore and the Federation, and that if they treat the citizenship rights as national rights they will then get benefits and their lives will be happier. It seems that the P.A.P. is very concerned with the people's interests. How sincere is it? As a matter of fact, it is a very fearful trap. The P.A.P. is trying to set a trap for the people. It wants to chop off the heads of the people of Singapore in the name of merger for the sake of the minority leaders in the Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last few days, the Members of this House have witnessed the struggle of a dying Party. The speeches of Government Members have been contradictory and inconsistent as a result of which the people of Singapore are somewhat confused. Which Minister should the people of Singapore believe in? Which Minister is representing the Government? Or are the Ministers representing themselves?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know who wrote the speech which the hon. Member is reading with such great labour?

Mr Speaker: The point of order being whether the hon. Member is entitled to read. I have suggested in my circulars to Members that if a speech is made in a language other than English, copies of prepared speeches be given to interpreters for the sake of ease of interpretation. I take it that is what has been done in this particular case. Mr Ong Chang Sam.

Inche Yaacob rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Inche Yaacob Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): My point is this. I agree that copies of speeches should be given to the interpreters. But if the speech of the hon. Member was written by himself, surely he should not be reading it with great difficulty.

Mr Speaker: There are different methods of reading. Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): If the Member for Bukit Timah -

Mr Speaker: I do not want any debate. Please continue.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): If the P.A.P. profess themselves to be non-Communist Socialists, then they should not confuse the vision of the people of Singapore with all kinds of distortions and nonsensical speeches. Mr Speaker, Sir, if one is confused over a certain matter and one still pursues a certain line, then the danger is very great. It is just like this. If you are not sure how deep the water is but you still insist on jumping in, then in the end you will drown, as a result of which the people will laugh at you.

At the moment, the term "merger" between the two territories is not quite clear. The Prime Minister of the Federation said that this is not a complete merger and that a better term for it i3 a partnership. The Prime Minister of Singapore said that this is a kind of merger and that merger on a partnership basis is better than any other relationship. The Minister for Health said that this is a kind of merger on a partnership basis. His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his speech said that merger is impossible. But the Minister for Labour, in moving his motion, said that it is merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore are confused, and are not sure which is Right and which is Left. In fact, the P.A.P. intend to throw dust into the eyes of the people of Singapore. They said that that kind of merger is very good because they want to blind the people's vision and so confuse them. May I ask the Government which Minister's speech is correct? And may I ask the Prime Minister to declare openly, sincerely and honestly in this House whether the speech of the Prime Minister of the Federation is correct, or whether what he himself has said is correct? Whether the Tunku has deceived the people, or whether the Prime Minister of Singapore has cheated the people?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already warned the Member that he is becoming a bit tedious. I think I must now read the Standing Order so that he will then perhaps be compelled to try and bring his speech to a close. This is Standing Order 54:

'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.'. But I do not wish to ask the hon. Member to discontinue his speech. I do wish to ask him to be a little more relevant, to speak a little more closely to the merger question and try not to repeat arguments which have been advanced by Members of his own Party. I have made a rough calculation - we have been debating for about 12 hours, i.e., more than two days.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was saying just now was in order to help you and the people of Singapore understand the meaning of merger. Otherwise, you will be confused, we will be confused, and the people of Singapore will also be confused over the meaning of merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me look into what the Minister for Health and Law said. This is the Nanyang Siang Pau of 23rd November. He said:

'We agree with the negotiations but we do not agree to proposing intransigent proposals. We know that under true negotiations Singapore and the Federation of Malaya will not have generous terms accruing to each side and no generous terms can satisfy either party on either side of the Causeway.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, how absurd it is. First, the P.A.P. by itself along has no right to talk about merger, a matter which concerns all the people. Second, granting that the P.A.P. has the right to represent the people of Singapore, does it ask for automatic conversion of the citizens of Singapore into citizens of the Federation? Third, who authorised the P.A.P. to give up so generously the first-class citizenship rights of the people of Singapore? Is the question of merger only to satisfy the interests of the few leaders on the other side of the Causeway? Can the interests of the people be regarded as party interests?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health and Law said on 22nd November - let me quote a passage from his speech as reported there:

'All these flimsy arguments about citizenship, status, and so on, are invented by those who are against merger. Nationalists and patriots after understanding that there are no basic differences will not insist on saying that there is a difference in citizenship status.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is meant by a "flimsy and phoney" argument? A first-class citizen is demoted to a second-class citizen - is that not a fact? Is it not false? Is it not hypocrisy? Does the Minister for Health and Law know what is the definition of the word "invention"? By saying that there are different classes of citizens, this inventor then should be the P.A.P. who invented all these different classes of citizens. I am only mentioning numerous facts to prove that there are different classes of citizens. What we mention is based on facts.

The Minister for Law accused us of being anti-merger and of giving flimsy or hypocritical arguments. Mr Speaker, in the course of history, you can never see the true patriots and nationalists who will insist on giving away their country, their national flag and their national anthem and their rights to acquire unequal rights and status.

Mr Speaker, the Government of the Federation, in opposing the South African apartheid policy, has set a very good example. But if the people of Singapore are likened to the coloured people of South Africa, and the citizens of the 11 States of the Federation are likened to white men, what difference is there in this kind of analogy? This comparison is very apt. I sincerely hope that under true negotiations of merger, Singapore citizens will have the same equal rights. Let the P.A.P. declare what are the definitions of "nationalist", "patriot", and the so-called "non-Communist". What is the theoretical basis of a non-Communist socialist?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us examine this. The Minister for Culture, as you know, is a non-Communist Malayan Socialist. He is the Chief of Staff in promoting this Malayan culture. He asked, with reference to the speech of the Member for Queenstown, how many of the 600,000-odd citizens of Singapore could enjoy this right? How many of them think they would go to the Federation to stand for election? He also said that even if the majority of the voters were given that right, they were not interested in standing for election. Mr Speaker, how irresponsible that speech is. The people of Singapore now know that the Government of Singapore is dealing with the problem of citizenship on this basis. That is why the citizenship rights of the people of Singapore can so easily be sold out. I want to tell the Minister for Culture this: of course, it cannot be that all these 600,000-odd Singapore citizens will stand for election, but the 624,000 citizens want to enjoy the same political rights as the citizens of the Federation. And Singapore citizens want to move about freely in the other 11 States in the Federation. The 624,000 citizens want to enjoy the same economic life. May I ask the Minister for Culture what is meant by parliamentary democracy? What is the basis of parliamentary democracy? Is not voting the basic political right of the people? In this world, is there any inequality of rights existing in a socialist country? What kind of socialism is the P.A.P. following?

Mr Speaker, of the 624,000 citizens of Singapore, how many of them can make use of these rights? They will not strive just for the sake of standing for election? What is conveyed by these two sentences? It shows that the Minister for Culture is ungrateful. During the time of the elections, he went round to all the voters to persuade them to come out to vote.

Mr Speaker: Order. This again is a repetition of the same theme. I think it must be about the sixth time that the Member has played on this theme. I do ask him once again to come to the end of his speech as soon as possible.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: Mr Speaker, Sir, in a few minutes I shall wind up my speech. According to the phoney merger by the P.A.P., the citizens of Singapore will get inequality when they live, but they will get equality when they die. The citizens of Singapore have no-right to enjoy the same political life. However, the citizens of Singapore have the obligation to be called up for service to defend the new Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not mean that the citizens of Singapore should not be conscripted to defend our motherland. What I mean is that under the phoney merger by the P.A.P., the citizens of Singapore and the Federation have the same obligations but they do not enjoy the same rights. How can you say this is a merger? How can you say that this is a reunification of the two territories? Is this equality?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have clearly reflected the views of the people of Singapore. If the Party in power want to fight for the interests of the people, they have to be awakened now. They should stop selling out. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Buddhists say, "Put down your sword, and then you will become a Buddha." Let those friends opposite ponder over this saying. Otherwise the people of Singapore will send them to hell.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment to the motion.

6.48 p.m.