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

2.40 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."

2.41 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, yesterday I talked about our proposal which would look after the welfare of the people who would not be deceived by the machinators. Therefore, our Party Chairman's amendment will show clearly who is real and who is false: who is true and who is untrue. In fact, although they talk about merger, it is not a real merger. They are cheating the people. Mr Speaker, the amendment moved by our Party Chairman is truly in accordance with the hopes and aspirations of the people. Here, we can see how the workers, farmers and people in all walks of life in Singapore react against the P.A.P.'s merger. All the people have raised their points of view, but the leadership in the P.A.P. still refuse to listen to the people and secretly carry on their act of selling out the people. Mr Speaker, the people are very realistic about citizenship. That has made the P.A.P. talk ambiguously. Their aim has been disclosed very gradually. Our Chairman, by using simple terms, has very clearly and systematically explained to the people our opinions. No matter how eloquent they are, they still cannot speak against us. They cannot defeat us verbally. Mr Speaker, from the debate of the past few days, no wonder people at large have all stated that the P.A.P. now and the P.A.P. of former days are different. This is really true. The people at large are right. They are 100 per cent correct. We can see the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Labour making eloquent speeches to try and deceive the people. They use all sorts of means to achieve their aims.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now I want to quote the Member for Cairnhill's speech. In the second day of his speech, he denied what he said on the first day. He said that he was not opposed to the Barisan Sosialis' motion, but that the Barisan Sosialis had special motives. Mr Speaker, Sir, his speech appeared to be rational.

This motion is apparently a real one. After analysis, we can have a more rational approach and we can express the people's views. We hope that everyone will think of the people's interests and try to attain the reunification and merger of Singapore with the Federation, but not by false expressions to deceive the people. Only by this will the people's wishes be expressed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the sincerity shown by our Party Chairman in his speech is now wasted. From the speech of the leader of the S.P.A., you can see that we are sincere. We are fighting hard so that our citizenship rights will not be sold out. If the citizens of Singapore cannot automatically become citizens of the Federation, then it is not a real merger. In this respect, the S.P.A. are more honest and more frank than the P.A.P. leaders. But they are opportunistic because, on the one hand, they support the P.A.P. and, on the other hand, they attack the P.A.P. This contradictory attitude is laughable. The general masses already know their true colours. But the leaders of the P.A.P. are more dishonest. They continue with their sophisticated arguments and they can only repeat what the Prime Minister has said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance said that from 1954 to 1959 anti-colonial forces united together to fight the British. In those days, the P.A.P. saw fit to unite with all nationalists - even with the Communists - and all other anti-colonial forces. They said that it was a three-cornered fight amongst the nationalists, Communists and the P.A.P. at that time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are talking about today is whether we are to have a true or a phoney merger. The question is whether we are to agree to the proposed merger of the Barisan Sosialis, which is for the interests of the people of Singapore, or whether we are to agree to the P.A.P. phoney merger, which is to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore.

The Minister for Finance talked at length about Communism. His purpose was to confuse the vision of the people from the issue of whether it is a true or phoney merger and to direct their attention to the problem of Communism. He was actually trying to throw a red herring across the path. From this we can clearly see that the P.A.P. are bankrupt in ideas. They do not have any new material to offer. All that they can do is just to go on talking. From our experience with the colonialists, we should fight against this oppression. We should fight for true democratic rights and for the improvement of the livelihood of the people. All this is in accordance with the desires and wishes of the people. It is not a question whether Singapore is a Communist State or not. My purpose in joining the Barisan Sosialis is to fight for the materialisation of parliamentary democracy and for a more just and reasonable society in order to improve the lot of the people.

The Minister for Finance has also said that now the nationalists have to part with the Communists and that there should be a clear demarcation between them. Do the P.A.P. profess themselves to be so-called nationalists? If this is what the Minister for Finance means, then I believe the people will reject this kind of reasoning. Since the P.A.P. came into power, the people of Singapore can see through the intrigues of the P.A.P. in putting forward a phoney merger which is intended to sell out Singapore. This is the common talk at street corners. The people say that the Lim Yew Hock Government sold Christmas Island, but the Prime Minister wants to sell Singapore! Therefore, I advise the leadership of the P.A.P. not to disgrace the good name of the nationalists. The P.A.P. are not qualified to call themselves nationalists. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that there are only a few hundred Communists in Singapore. Why should the citizenship rights of thousands of people in Singapore be deprived for the sake of a few hundred Communists?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to touch on what the Minister for Health and Law said. He stated that the automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federation citizens on Merger Day will not be acceptable to the Federation Government. This is quite honest, but this also goes to explain one point. The way in which the P.A.P. leadership are behaving is very shameful. They want to monopolise the whole thing. If they cannot monopolise the whole thing, they do not want to do anything. They should tell the people of Singapore frankly what they intend to do. They should seek strength from all classes of the people to persuade the Tunku that if that sort of negotia tion is not agreeable in the interests of the people of Singapore, then the terms of such a merger should not be accepted. We can fight for our constitutional advancement by pursuing another method. This would have saved a lot of time of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister for Health and Law clearly recognises our stand on merger and thinks that it is a correct stand, then he should not waste time arguing about it unnecessarily.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us go on to what the Minister for Culture said. He could only talk about this and that. He spoke at random on things which were entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion. He used very abstract theories. His speech conveyed this meaning. He said that the proposal of the Barisan Sosialis for a merger of Singapore with the Federation, with Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens, will hearten communal parties - such as the P.M.I.P. - in the Federation of Malaya. This argument is not worth rebutting. I hope he will examine carefully the analysis given by our Party Chairman with regard to communal issues and matters relating thereto.

We have moved our amendment because it is good for the people of Singapore and Malaya as a whole. There should not be any communal conflicts or any other unpleasant results unless Machiavellian politicians want to create greater differences among the different races.

The Minister for Culture also pointed out that the 13 Members in the Barisan Sosialis left the P.A.P. not because of their stand on merger, but because they wanted complete internal self-government. This proves that the P.A.P. are unreasonable on the merger issue. They are irrelevant without giving any reason.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the time of the Anson by-election, the P.A.P. raised very vague merger terms and they asked the people to vote on them. In the end, the people passed very clear judgment on the P.A.P. But the leadership of the P.A.P. did not want to accept the judgment passed on them by the people. They did not want to examine their own hypocritical act but they pushed their claim for -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Tee Kim Leng) appears to be reading a newspaper. There is a Standing Order which I might read for the benefit of hon. Members - Standing Order 48 (d), which says:

'Members shall not read newspapers, books, letters or other documents except such matters therein as may be directly connected with the business under debate.'

So I take it that the Member for Pasir Panjang was probably reading matters in the newspaper which were directly connected with the business under debate.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): They accused us of stabbing the P.A.P. in the back. They made us a scapegoat for their defeat in Anson. But we had been in the P.A.P. for quite some time, and we clearly understand how the P.A.P. leadership treated the people. They used to resort to oppression, and now they fall on all fours in trying to appease the colonialists and reactionaries.

The leadership of the P.A.P. claim that merger is now in view. Now that this question is raised, the people have many doubts in their minds. First, everybody knows that the Federation Government has all along refused to merge. And the P.A.P.'s fourth Anniversary Souvenir also stated the reason why the Tunku did not want merger - there are too many Chinese in Singapore, and the strength of the Left-wing forces in Singapore is too great. If there is true merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, it will affect their political status and position. But the number of Chinese in Singapore today is not less than before, and the strength of Left-wing forces is even greater than before. And yet why is the Federation very interested in merger now? Does it mean that the Federation has already changed its original view on merger? What is the reason?

Secondly, the British have now changed their attitude towards merger, from one of silence to one of interest. Everybody knows that the separation of the two territories was the result of the colonialist policy of divide and rule. But the present attitude of the British is that they are now very agreeable to merger.

Thirdly, the leadership of the P.A.P. have suddenly cried out that merger is now in view, and made use of it as a kind of panacea to save themselves. This is what we doubt very much. We were Party cadres in the P.A.P. before. At that time, the leadership of the Party never pointed out to us the possibility of reaching agreement on the terms of merger. But now they suddenly announce that merger is in view, and are using this issue as a very valuable bargain. There must be some reason for it. In the days when we were in the Party, we already had some suspicion about the leadership of the P.A.P. We found out something - we knew they were prepared to sell out the people, particularly during the Anson by-election, when the Prime Minister frankly said that we should not offend the Right-wing reactionaries. This created more doubts in the leadership of the P.A.P.

Fourthly, on the question of merger, why did the leadership of the P.A.P. not seek permission from the people when the merger terms were announced? Why did the P.A.P. dis tort the facts? When our terms of merger were announced, the P.A.P. leadership attacked us and accused us of distorting the facts, saying that we were anti-merger. I think the question of merger is a national issue. Everybody has a right to know. Everybody has a right to give his opinion on merger.

Lastly, the people should have a final say on this matter. Why do the P.A.P. try to intimidate those people who have a sense of responsibility? We had asked the Central Executive Committee to accept our views on various aspects, but our views were all turned down or rejected. Instead the leadership of the P.A.P. were very dis satisfied and accused us of many things. All these show that the P.A.P. are determined to sell out the interests of the people.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Culture has said that since we the Barisan Sosialis want Singapore to merge with the Federation of Malaya and form a State in it, why did we also demand full internal self-government? It is very difficult to understand his logic.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Culture, as one of the three great leaders of the P.A.P. and one who was at one time an editor in the Straits Times, could not understand the organ of our Party. This is something which I cannot understand. I think he is trying to confuse the people on the merger issue. This also shows that the theories and arguments advanced by the leadership of the P.A.P. are empty.

Today things have changed. We have clearly seen that the leadership of the P.A.P., because they want to keep up their names and at the same time attack the Leftists, insist on having a phoney merger which sells out the people. Otherwise,, they have to accept our amendment to the motion for a merger of Singapore with the Federation.

3.10 p.m.

Inche M. Ismail Rahim (Geylang East): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the points of my speech may have already been made by hon. Members of this Assembly. But let me have an opportunity to speak. The objects of my speech are clearly expressed in the Malay language.

Mr Speaker, may I give a reminder that the people of Singapore, on the whole, should not get involved when members of the Socialist Front and others talk about politics in Singapore and the Federation, particularly political speeches and utterances about Manchuria and so on. What will happen, particularly in Singapore, if the policy of the Barisan Sosialis with regard to a genuine merger is followed? The Barisan Sosialis fights for the people. Which people, Mr Speaker? Nationalists or Communists? Mr Speaker, if we continue to hear arguments and reasons from the Opposition, in particular from the Socialist Front, why must the P.A.P. plan of merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya be rejected? There is nothing in their arguments that are reasonable.

If we study the heads of agreement reached between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, as contained in the White Paper, it will be clearly seen that the contents of the White Paper generally reflect the give-and-take spirit of both the Singapore .and the Federation Governments with a view to safe guarding local and special interests, which form the legitimate rights of the people of the two territories. Firstly, the fundamental rights of the people of the two territories, Singapore and the Federation, will not be violated in the slightest way after merger. The fundamental rights of the people, Mr Speaker, will be adequately protected and guaranteed, as enunciated in the Federation Constitution. Likewise, the special position of the Singapore Malays will be safeguarded and guaranteed in the future. The Federation of Malaysia Constitution includes, among the basic rights of the people of Singapore which will be guaranteed according to the Government's merger proposals, freedom of speech and representation, either orally or in writing and expression of views in healthy publications. The privileges of the people are now being enjoyed. The right of the people of Singapore to follow their own religious belief is also guaranteed in the Federation Constitution, and also the right to form associations, trade unions of workers, to strike and picket, and host of other conditions in accordance with the laws of the State. All these rights of the people of Singapore will be protected and guaranteed in the constitution of the future Federation of Malaysia. Mr Speaker, there are many other basic and fundamental rights which will be assured in the Federation Constitution and which we need not go into in detail. Suffice it for me to reiterate that there will be no discrimination at all between the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation in the Federation of Malaysia constitutional arrangement.

On the subject of representation in the Federal House of Representatives and the Senate, the position is much the same as for the other States now forming the Federation of Malaya, such as Johore, Selangor or Kelantan, except that candidates and voters in Singapore can only cast their votes in Singapore. We should, however, bear in mind that, likewise, candidates and voters in the Federation can only vote in the Federation. Nevertheless, Singapore will have 15 representatives in the Federal Parliament. This agreement means that although the electorate in Singapore can only vote in Singapore, and Federation voters can only vote in the Federation, nevertheless Singapore can contest seats in the Federal Parliament. This in turn means that, speaking from the points of view of political Parties and political ideologies, there is nothing to prevent any political Party in Singapore, for example, from forming an alliance with another political Party in the Federation in order to capture power and eventually hold the reins of government in the Central Government, provided that the two Parties can successfully obtain a majority of seats in the Federal Parliament. The Barisan Sosialis Members demand that all citizens should become Federal citizens unconditionally. Mr Speaker, it is clear in this House that this is a demand in extremism. Can we who are in a position of an applicant put forward an aggressive demand so that the supplier will accede to our demand? It is clear that if we merge with the Federation, we must abide by the Federation laws as laid down by the Federation Government. Then only can we say that this is a judicious and parliamentary action. Mr Speaker, you will agree with me that if we ask for the hand of a girl, as explained by a Member from the Alliance, both parties must be prepared to compromise, and whatever agreement reached should be satisfactory to both sides. If we simply try to impose our conditions on the other party the marriage proposal will in all likelihood be rejected. If it is rejected, whom will the Members of the Barisan Sosialis woo next? I believe the reply is Mao Tse-tung or Ho Chi Min.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon, the Prime Minister has explained that if we effect a complete merger with the Federation of Malaya on the basis of Penang and Malacca, this will mean that a large number of our Singapore citizens will lose their citizenship rights. The reason is that many Singapore citizens cannot meet the citizenship requirements of the Federation, in order to become Federal citizens. In this event, hundreds of thousands of Singapore citizens will be frustrated. Citizens of Singapore who are now enjoying various privileges and benefits in Singapore will lose these privileges. These privileges include the securing of Housing Development Board flats, jobs in the Government service, land in the Jurong development scheme, social welfare dole, free education and other social services. Mr Speaker, Sir, only those persons who become Federal citizens and only those who can satisfy the citizenship laws of the Federation can enjoy such privileges. Whereas all the people of Singapore who have hitherto enjoyed all these privileges will lose their citizenship rights. They will be deprived of all the privileges I have enumerated just now, because, according to demand made by the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues, there will be no Singapore citizenship. There will only exist Federal citizenship. Surely the people of Singapore do not want this to happen.

Mr Speaker, in the marathon speech of the Member for Queenstown, he touched on the education and labour policies of the Singapore Government. If we were to accept the demand of the Barisan Sosialis, the education policy of giving equal treatment to all language streams would disappear. Likewise, much progressive labour legislation which has been approved by the P.A.P. Government would disappear. This will be the result of complete merger. On complete merger, we will have to abide by the education and labour policies of the Federation Government. The Barisan Sosialis fear that the wrath of the people of Singapore will be on them.

Mr Speaker, I would like to explain further the points raised by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They say that the P.A.P. is misleading the people, that the P.A.P. is insincere, that the P.A.P. is cheating the people, that the P.A.P. is bankrupt - blank cheque - and is selling out the people and frightening the voters. I pay no heed at all to all this. But if the Member for Hong Lim says that this is three-quarters merger, I say it means that he agrees to the spirit of compromise. Mr Speaker, it is not surprising to me, if we think we are smart or if we have gone astray, to mislead the others. This is a great sin. I would remind the Barisan Sosialis about this. It is like a parrot who can still talk even now.

3.25 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown and other Members of the Barisan Sosialis have brought up before this House three main issues.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): On a point of order, Sir,Is the Minister for Finance now the Prime Minister?

Mr Speaker: I take it the hon. Member for Queenstown is referring to Standing Order 48 (a). It says:

'Members shall occupy seats allocated to them by the Speaker.'

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the House that I have not the same ambitions as the Member for Queenstown has. I was just coming here to clarify a few points with my colleague, the Minister for Health and Law.

Mr Speaker: Order. I had better clear the atmosphere in regard to that. There is no objection at all to any Member taking another seat so long as he takes it just for the purposes of clarification or having a brief conversation with other Members. But it must be brief.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): That is all.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Delta has such a charming voice that I always say to myself that I should not say "Order" to her. Dr Thio.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying just now that the Member for Queenstown and the other Members of the Barisan Sosialis have raised three main issues. The first issue is based on the term "genuine merger" in the amendment. By that, Sir, they put before the House and before the people of Singapore the issue that their's is a genuine merger and the P.A.P. type of merger is phoney. Then they raise another issue, that their type of merger is complete and the other type is incomplete and, therefore, bad or tiga suku. The third issue raised, Sir, is that on Merger Day Singapore citizens should automatically become Federal nationals and Federal citizens not only in Singapore but that they should also have the right of transferability to vote or to stand for election in any part of the Federation.

Sir, as a former school-master and a student of history, I have been very unhappy about this incorrect use of the term "merger". However, it was pointed out to me that since it is being used in the local context to mean any form of political union, therefore, I should not raised any objection. But listening to the debate, I realise that because of the inaccurate use of the term "merger", there has been a great deal of misunderstanding. So the Barisan Sosialis Member for Queenstown has rightly brought us down to the realisation that we must define the term "merger", and he has used the words "genuine merger". Sir, we have been going round and round the merry-go-round, round the merry Member for Queenstown for days and days. I think it is time we go to a proper authority and ask for clarification.

Sir, when we go to the historians and the constitutional experts, we find that the information they give us is very startling. It shows that the so-called genuine merger described by the Member for Queenstown is not only not genuine but not a merger! If a diamond claimed to be a genuine diamond is not genuine, how can it be even a diamond? A clear explanation of the term "merger", as used historically to apply to a political union, is given, Sir, in a book written by a Rhodes Professor of History of London University. The book is entitled "Federal and Unified Constitutions" by A. P. Newton. I propose, Sir, to read very short extracts from page 2. He is talking about the State.

'A State's existence continues until society is completely dissolved into anarchy or until it is merged into some other State. The merging may be complete [so there is a case for a complete and an incomplete merger] either by conquest or by voluntary absorption, in both of which cases [and this is the important point], the existence of the merged State has come to an end.'

Sir, if that is what a merger is, then what the Barisan Sosialis Member for Queenstown wants is not a genuine merger, because he wants Singapore to go in as the twelfth State. In a genuine merger, Singapore cannot go in as the twelfth State. Singapore politically must cease to exist as a State. It can only go in as a county, as a district or as a province. It must lose its State Assembly. It cannot legislate. In that case, we can then describe a State as a unitary State - an example of a genuine merger. Sir, if this is what a genuine merger really is, in the light of history as exemplified by political unions which are of the genuine merger type, then we have all gone wrong somewhere. By being too loose in our use of the term, we are confusing Members in different sections of this House and also members of the public. I think it is time that we in this Assembly help people here and outside to think rightly.

Sir, let me quote two examples of genuine merger. Great Britain is a good example, where England, Scotland and Wales have been merged into one unitary State. There is only one Parliament and these separate States have lost their political existence - Scotland, England and Wales. Northern Ireland, which came in later, Sir, refused to lose its political identity and existence and, therefore, it went in on a special basis, on a loose Federation basis or confederation basis. That is why today we get the grouping described as the United Kingdom of Great Britain (that is, the merged State) and Northern Ireland.

South Africa is another example of a genuine merger. The United States of America are not an example of a genuine merger. They are a Federal union. In South Africa, Sir, there is only one Central Parliament. There is no separate legislature in Natal, Cape Colony or the Transvaal. They only have provincial councils. All have been merged under one supreme central government.

Sir, there is one danger about this type of merger. Reference has been made to apartheid. Where differences of race and language have not been completely reconciled, it is quite possible in a merged state for one section to dominate Parliament and therefore pass laws which are not quite fair to another section of the population.

Sir, in Malaya we had a genuine merger type of political union from 1946 to 1948. That was the Malayan Union. It lasted only three years, Sir, because the Malays all over the Federation protested strongly against this type of political union. The result was that it was abandoned and the Federation of Malaya was restored to them in 1948. So there is no real example today of a genuine merger -