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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Order. Item 2 on the Order Paper, debate on the amendment as shown in that item. Dr Thio.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid most of us have forgotten what I said before the interruption. So, Sir, forgive me if I try to bring the threads together.

I was saying, Sir, that in the eyes of historians and constitutional experts, the term "genuine merger" or "complete merger" is not really applicable to the Malayan situation. Use it loosely if we must, but we have to say it clearly that in a loose sense, the word "merger" applies to practically any form of political union. Because of the Government's mistake in not clarifying the term, the Barisan Sosialis Member for Queenstown has followed up that mis take by arguing in favour of a genuine merger as against a phoney merger. I am afraid the public outside are being misled because of that. It is important to realise that what we are considering for Malaya are various forms of partial merger, and these forms are known to historians as Federal unions. Federal unions are of roughly two kinds. One kind is that of a federation, sometimes tighter than others, sometimes less tight. Another form is the confederation type. In between, there again may be slight variations. Each one, Sir, has its own special characteristics. For the sake of analogy, to enable some people to understand better the difference between these two types, let us say that a federation is like a hand with the fingers linked together to the main body by means of the palm and the arm. Now, the States in the Federation have some liberties, Sir, but they cannot move round and round like the arm. They are restricted in their movements. They are States in a federation. They are one in a sense, but the emphasis here is on all the powers being given to the Central Government except for certain specified ones given to the States. In the case of a confederation type of partial merger, Sir, Singapore is like the whole arm. It gives to the Central Government only certain specified powers like external affairs, defence and security; then all the rest are given to Singapore. It is a very loose type of federal union, generally known as a confederation. Where the people are not ready to be closely tied together because of differences of language, customs and religious beliefs, they usually start by going on to the first stage, the confederation type of federal union. When they have learnt to trust one another better, then they go on to the second stage, the federation type of federal union. When they have really sunk all differences and have become completely malayanised so that they can think together as one without reservation, without any fears and any suspicions then they go on to the last and ultimate stage, that of genuine merger as exemplified in Great Britain and in the Union of South Africa. But to press for a genuine merger right away when we have not yet sorted out our differences may give rise to a situation, as in South Africa, where the coloured races feel that they are being discriminated against.

Sir, the Swiss confederation began as far back as 1291. That was the first federal pact known in modern history - 1291 - centuries before they learned to trust one another enough until final ly, round about 1848, they formed their federal republic, the same type of federal union as we see in the Federation, with slight variations. The American States also went through the same stages. On 15th November, 1777, 13 States signed the Articles of Confederation. Their purpose was for a firm league of friendship with one another for common defence, security of their liberties, and their mutual and genuine welfare.

Sir, if Singapore wishes to link up with the Federation in a tight federation but if the Malays are unprepared to accept Singapore on that basis, then, of course, our - I am using the term roughly now - merger plans will never advance one inch. But because the American States began with a confederation, 10 years later, Sir, having developed sufficient trust in one another, and having become convinced of the greater strength to be produced in a tight federation, they then formed the United States of America on a federal basis.

Sir, we in the Alliance believe that although we all aim for genuine merger as the ultimate type, in order to ensure success, we have to do it by stages. If necessary, we should go for the first stage, the confederation stage; then after five years, review the position, and go for the federation type; then after that, when the people are all ready, we can have a genuine merger type of union.

Sir, another important point to remember is that political unions are like different suits of clothes of different sizes. They fit different people at people at different times according to their different ages. One cannot say that this suit is complete and, therefore, it is good that suit is incomplete, and, therefore, it is bad. On that basis, Sir, I suppose, because I wear a complete suit, therefore, I am in a better position than those who wear incomplete suits. They find themselves more comfortable, perhaps, to be in incomplete suits. The Barisan Sosialis friends may find it more comfortable to be in incomplete suits -

Mr Rajaratnam: In bikini!

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I would not want to say, Sir, that their type of clothes is inferior to mine. They just like those clothes, so there they are. If people like an incomplete type of merger today, well, that is the best way to make them happy. Why insist, Sir, that they should wear one type of clothes? I would not want to insist that every Member of this House should wear a suit like yours, Sir, with due respect to -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon Member is drawing analogies, he should try and draw his analogies as against extraneous matters, because I can assured him I am feeling a bit hot in my wig!

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I am trying to bring out this point, that the issue that a complete merger is therefore superior to an incomplete merger is a wrong issue. At the seaside, people find it better to be in scanty clothes. Here they prefer to have warmer clothes. In the same way, Sir, in Singapore with so much independence of spirit shown by youngsters, they may prefer greater freedom. They may want a looser form of merger than that in the Federation. Therefore, the confederation type of federal union would suit them well, where only certain specified powers are reserved to the Central Government and all residual powers are given to the State of Singapore.

Sir, I suggest we reconsider whether or not a form of political union is suitable for us on the following basis. We should ask ourselves whether this form of political union is suitable, workable and acceptable to the contracting countries. If it is suitable to only one or two and not to the rest, acceptable only to one and not to the other, Sir, then we do not have the basis for agreement. Therefore, merger negotiations, again using the term roughly, would fail. Se condly, we should ask ourselves whether the type of political union we are pressing for makes for greater or less racial harmony and happiness. Thirdly, is it mutually beneficial? And fourthly, does it help to promote greater economic prosperity and, therefore, greater chances of employment for our people?

Sir, considered on this basis, the Barisan Sosialis suggestion that a citizen ,of Singapore should have transferability of votes - they say they have the right to transfer themselves over the Causeway to vote or to stand for election - would frighten the Malays in the Federation. If I were a Malay, I would appreciate it better. I ask my fellow Members who are not Malays to look at it from the view-point of the Malays, to be fair. It is like saying we want to have a confederation with more liberty for the State, yet we want the right for one arm to go over and be merged with the other arm. Two arms to become one arm. If you want a choice, you have to choose one or the other. You want more liberty, then there is the confederation. You want less liberty for the State, then that is the federation status.

Viewed, however, from the Chinese side in Singapore, the Barisan Sosialis type of partial merger is wonderful. We want everything. We want freedom and we want the right to have a majority. If we are indifferent to the feelings of the Malays, then we will say, yes, that is the type of partial merger we want. But I am sure, having lived in Malaya so long, we are appreciative of the fears and resentments of our Malay friends and brethren. If we are trying to develop a new nation, we should be fair-minded and not arouse unnecessarily in them more fears and suspicions. If we do that, then the confederation type is the best for everybody. I have said, Sir, that after 5 years we can review the position. Supposing we say that the Barisan Sosialis insists and we all vote for the Barisan Sosialis amendment that there must be automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federation citizen nationals, and not only that, but we also must have the right to go over to the Federation and vote and stand for election, then we know the answer. It will be no. We may like it in Singapore, but from the Federation side the answer will be no. That being so, we are then forced to go back to the status quo. Here, Sir, there are two groups of people who might favour the status quo. The Barisan Sosialis have said that they are willing to have self-government with the Internal Security Council removed. But, Sir, we can see the dangers here. If the internal Security Council is removed, we might become an East Berlin where there will be even less freedom than now. On the other hand, I think there are a small number of people who are dreaming of the time when the British will scrap the Constitution and they will go back to the colonial status. If they want that, I think they are dreamers. They cannot turn the clock back. In order to awaken them from their sleep, I would like to recount an incident which took place in Kuala Lumpur some six or seven years back when Sir General Templer - a man who should know British policy - said (this is a paraphrase), "Even if some people may want us to stay here longer, events may take place outside this country and in the United Kingdom which will compel us to hand over the government to you people. So for goodness sake, organise yourselves as quickly as possible to take over the government." Sir, when an officer of that calibre gives advice to the local people to organise themselves as quickly as possible and be ready to take over the government, then I plead with those who are still sleeping that they must not stand on the side-lines and allow the country to be taken over by extremists. They must assume their responsibilities and make sure that democracy is a success.

Sir, today we stand at a very important point on the road towards nationhood. The past has a lesson for us so that we can build a better future. In 1946-48, many of us remember that there was a great deal of communal tension in Singapore and the Federation. There was a hartal. The Malays were organising themselves to resist. People were keyed up for a big fight. I am glad to say that a spirit of goodwill and understanding came to ten top Malay leaders and ten top Chinese leaders, and they met at Johore Bahru to discuss the problem. The Malays said, "We have political power but you have economic power. If you help us to rise economically, we must naturally share with you our economic power because the Chinese and Malays, being the largest communities, must live together har moniously like brothers or we shall never have peace and harmony in this country." In that spirit, I am glad to say, they were able to turn the course of history. Now people say that Malaya is an example of racial harmony.

Today, Sir, on this merger issue, we face another cross-road. I appeal to the leaders of the various communities in Singapore, the Federation and even Malaysia, to have the same spirit of goodwill and understanding and, in that spirit, seek to find the best form of poli tical union which will enable us to come closer and closer together until we become a united nation. Sir, this takes time. Some want to rush into a united nation at once by forcing their own brand of merger, but I ask them to consider that if we force the Malays to accept a political union on those terms, it might mean failure; whereas if we are understanding and are prepared to move forward, first on the basis of a confederation, and then reconsider the position after five years to go into a tight federation, we shall be able to reach the goal which the Barisan Sosialis want but do not quite comprehend - the goal of genuine merger.

6.36 p.m.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last few days, Members of the Opposition, especially those in the Barisan Sosialis, have made lengthy speeches on the question of genuine merger. They have talked a great deal on the amendment of the Member for Queenstown in the hope of dealing the Government a blow. As a matter of fact, we have seen in the last few days that it is impossible for a fox to hide its own tail. It may be able to do so for the time being, but its appearance -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member referring to Members of the Opposition as animals?

Mr Speaker: If the interpretation is correct - I am sure it is correct - then she is alleging that some Members are foxes hiding their tails. I have always discouraged likening Members to any type of animal.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the case, I will use another form of expression. They are trying to make use of the clothes of other people to cover themselves. But in any case, however hard they try to cover themselves up, they will be shown for what they are.

The moving of the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis clearly shows what it amount to. They pretend to be sincere in learning the Bible, but all the time they are pretending to learn it. So this is only a very lame excuse. If the Barisan Sosialis have no intention whatsoever of reflecting the desire of the people in the Federation and Singapore, then how can they think of such things as a genuine merger and their amendment to the motion? If a person does not want to do good deeds, what is the point of asking a priest to pray for him? This behaviour of the Barisan Sosialis is significant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I heard the Member for Choa Chu Kang say - this is reported in today's Nanyang Siang Pau - that since the inception of the Barisan Sosialis, it has not changed its stand on merger of Singapore with the Federation and that its stand will remain the same in future. But if it only wants to express its stand, then I think it is totally unreliable. We can see from the speeches of Members of the Barisan Sosialis that their stand on merger is changing all the time. They can change like the Monkey God which can change itself into several shapes. In a statement reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 30th August, they said that their stand on merger of Singapore with the Federation was that they must have a true merger immediately so that Singapore can go into the Federation as a State like Penang or Malacca. However, on 2nd September, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis - the Member for Queenstown - was reported in the same newspaper to have said in reply to certain statements made in this House that he reiterated the stand of the Barisan Sosialis for a self-governing State of Singapore. He said that the abolition of the Internal Security Council should be achieved by 1963 so that Singapore will be an internally self-governing State. From this kind of statement -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order. The hon. Lady is reading from a document. Would she mind quoting the other paragraphs as well, Sir? She is only quoting a portion of it and it distorts the whole view.

Mr Speaker: If there is a paragraph in the cutting of the newspaper which contains the quotation, then the whole paragraph should be read, so that the quotation will not be out of context.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is necessary, I do not mind reading the paragraph. But I feel that what he said in this particular paragraph is contrary to what has been said previously. He said that the Barisan Sosialis may consider the confederation proposal, including the Borneo territories, but it must be one in which there must be full internal selfgovernment. Therefore, as I said just now, if the stand of the Party is what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said, then that stand is unreliable. And if what he has said is only his personal view, then that is even more unreliable.

6.47 p.m.

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

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Why do I say so? It is this: I remember the time when he was in the P.A.P. He obviously agreed to the ob jectives and stand of the P.A.P. And because he agreed to such objectives, he joined us in our struggle. But how does it come about that he has now parted from us? Well, mainly it is because he wants a stand that is different from that of the P.A.P. For this reason, he has crossed the Floor to join the Barisan Sosialis opposite. Now that he is in the Barisan Sosialis, he is not sure whether the Barisan Sosialis has a clear stand. And if this stand is not agreeable to him, I wonder whether he will do anything about it.

Talking about the question of merger, which is a reflection of the desire of the people of Singapore and the Federation, we must say that the reunification of these two territories is inevitable because geographically, culturally, and economically, Singapore has all along been a part of the Federation, and the reunification of these two territories is therefore inevitable. Since 1946 all anti-colonial people and true nationalists have shouted this slogan of reunification, and the P.A.P. has been one of them. Even as early as 1954 the P.A.P. put forward its own objectives, that is, to end the rule of the colonialists in order to bring about a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. All along, the ideology and spirit of the P.A.P. has never deviated from such objectives. All along we have been struggling honestly and decidedly according to our stand, i.e. to lead the people forward in the achievement of a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. And it is because of this correct stand of ours that we have been able to get the support of the various classes of people.

However, the Barisan Socialis Members opposite say that the question of merger today is a sort of trick played by the P.A.P. in the past few months in order to save its precarious position in power. They say that since the P.A.P. has assumed power, there has been little or no talk at all about this matter. As a matter of fact, in our policy speech as reported in a booklet published in 1960 by the Editorial Board of the P.A.P., we said this-regarding the constitutional talks with the British on merger between the Federation and Singapore, "We must reiterate the stand of the P.A.P. We are standing firm on our stand. If we do not have sufficient force or strength and ability to carry out our policy and get the support of the people, then we shall fail."

In this booklet, there is yet another paragraph which touches on this. Some people think that Singapore can become an independent State by itself. There is another proposal - we must start talks on co-operation between Singapore and the Federation. Are we to achieve independence through talks with the Federation, or are we to have talks with the British to get independence for Singapore itself?

In 1957 when our Secretary-General stood for the by-election in Tanjong Pagar, there was controversy in this matter. At that time the question was whether it was practical for Singapore to get independence. Or whether it was proper for Singapore to get independence through merger with the Federation, which meant a greater unity, viz, from a merger between Singapore and the Federation, Singapore could get its independence. And because this question was brought up during the by-election in Tanjong Pagar, our representative was returned. So it would be incorrect to say that we never talked about the question of merger in the past few years. As a matter of fact, merger is one of the objectives of the P.A.P.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the propaganda line of the Barisan Sosialis is not well defined. They cannot, on the one hand, disregard the clean record of the P.A.P. over a period of some seven years, and on the other hand, accuse us of being unreasonable in trying to sell out the people. As a matter of fact, I say that those who say this are themselves unreasonable. They tried in the past to overthrow the P.A.P. Government. The situation actually became clear during the Anson by-election. At that time the so-called six trade union leaders in Singapore published a statement against the objectives of the P.A.P. that is, that we should have a truly full internal self-governing State of Singapore by 1963. And before the by-election, our Deputy Prime Minister reiterated the objectives of the P.A.P.'s struggle, namely, to go through with merger with the Federation and to achieve a fully independent Singapore. On the 13th June, the six trade union leaders of the P.A.P. issued a statement in which they repeated their desire to have a full internal self-governing State of Singapore. Four of

Column: 954.

these six trade unionists are now in the Central Executive Committee of the Barisan Sosialis. Subsequently, unfortunate events took place within the P.A.P. Eight Members who broke away from the P.A.P. published a statement in the papers saying that they endorsed the proposals brought up by the six trade unions leaders, i.e. to have a truly full self-governing State of Singapore by 1963 through constitutional talks.

Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens): (In Mandarin): On a point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Point of order.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask what paper is the Member holding and where she has got it?

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member wants to quote anything from a newspaper, she must, of course, inform the House which newspaper and what day.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is fortunate that what I am saying now is not written by my back-seat driver,, otherwise I would have been at a loss. I was just trying to tell this House that I was quoting from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 14th of July. They maintained their stand that they had broken away from the P.A.P. At that time they thought that by overthrowing the P.A.P. itself and the Government they could continue on their path to sell the Government to prevent the coming into being of merger. They thought that by doing this they could still maintain the open front of the Communists and their influence in Singapore. This ambition of theirs has failed badly. Therefore, they are now sitting opposite us and are travelling in a different way. The Barisan Sosialis Members sitting in this House have, by delivering lengthy speeches in these few days, become the puppets of the Communists.

Formerly, when we were happily together within the Party, I had occasion to know or to hear that the Member for Queenstown said certain things to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. He said that it did not matter if we could make use of the co-operation between the Communists and ourselves as long as the British did not lose their base in Singapore. He also said that they did not mind being mouth-pieces. But this is a sort of gamble. I believe that of the gambles in which they have been involved, this one is the most precarious and dangerous. If at that time we had followed the suggestion of the Member for Queenstown and had made use of the co-operation of the Communists and received instructions from them to achieve the abolition of the Internal Security Council by 1963 so as to have a fully self-governing Singapore, then I believe today we would still have been quite happy together sitting on the same side of the House. Then they would not have left the P.A.P. But we did not want to do what they had suggested. We felt that if we were to do what they had suggested, we would only weaken the relationship between Singa pore and the Federation. Can they say that we are not complying with the desire of the people? The people want a merger of Singapore with the Federation. But not the Communists. The main reason for this is that they want Singapore to be out of the control of the Federation so that they can make use of Singapore to liberate the Federation. But we must try to achieve a merger of Singapore with the Federation so that it will come as early as possible in order to solve our economic problems. This will be conducive to the interests of the people. This stand of ours is just the opposite of their stand. Since we have different objectives, we must part -company. On our side, we must continue to do our work and achieve merger. The Communists may go ahead with their struggle for a fully self-governing State. We wish them well. In any case, how can they say that we are unreasonable? Well, it is very simple. In the past, because we all wanted to achieve a common objective, namely, to defeat British colonialism, they came to our side to co-operate with us. But now this artificial separation is coming to an ,end very soon. [The English translation not being forthcoming.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think there is something wrong with the microphone of the Chinese interpreter.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): The Communists want to have self-government. So as a result of such differences we have to part company. This is only natural. Is it because we do not want to allow them to go their own way to sour the relationship between Singapore and the Federation? Can they say we are unreasonable in not allowing them to do things their own way? We can tell them now that, for the sake of achieving the reunification of Singapore and the Federation we are prepared to face any attack.

The second method of the Barisan Sosialis is this. They say that by trying to bring about merger we are trying to sell out the people of Singapore. I want to ask them this. In what way is the P.A.P. selling out Singapore, and to whom? Is the P.A.P. selling out Singapore to the British, or to the Japanese, or to the Americans? They are really more naive than a child. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me quote again in this House the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is the present Member for Upper Serangoon. At one time he was reported in the Nanyang Siang Pau of 13th July to have said this. This statement was made after the Anson by-election. He said that during the by-election, people were talking a great deal about the Malaysia and merger plans. I want to remind Members of this House that the Prime Minister had said this at a street corner meeting, i.e., that this question was to be decided finally by the people themselves because it was not a matter for only a few Ministers. The statement of the Prime Minister is still in the papers. Since the Prime Minister has already said such a thing, why should Members of the Barisan Sosialis come to this House and shout that the P.A.P. is selling out the people of Singapore? They come here every day and start shouting. The people in Singapore and the Federation are after all in the same family. They will come together again. We are now trying to bring Singapore back to the bosom of the Federation. I feel that it is but natural and reasonable. I say that it is also in conformity with the geographical and historial conditions of these two territories. After all, the people of Singapore are part and parcel of the Federation people. The merger arrangement is just like the handling over of the domestic chores of a younger brother to an elder brother. I do not see anything wrong in that. So how can they say that we are selling out Singapore? Perhaps their accusations have come about purely because the Federation Government is a Right-wing Government and maybe it is because of this they say that we are trying to sell out the people of Singapore to the Tunku. Well, can we say that the Tunku's Government is not representative of the Federation people? The Barisan Sosialis' logic is very unreasonable and irrational. They even talked contradictorily on their own amendment. As the Leader of the House, the Deputy Prime Minister, has said, and rightly so, the amendment brought forward by the Barisan Sosialis is just like kicking somebody in the back and then shaking hands with him, and asking him, "Well, are you all right?" They do not want to clarify the true situation before they make their accusations which cannot be substantiated by facts. If there is actually a sell out, then the people's interests in Singapore would have been injured or damaged; but according to our merger proposals, the interests of the people of Singapore will not be damaged in any way at all. The people of Singapore will not only retain their citizenship, but will also obtain nationality in the new Federation. And on questions such as labour, education, social welfare and the entrepot status of Singapore, they will still be what they are, that is to say, these subjects will still remain in the hands of the Singapore Government. The only difference is this. We are now carrying British passports. In future, British passports will turn into Federation of Malaya passports. These rights cannot be had in the other States in the Federation of Malaya.

In the past few days, the Member for Hong Lim opposite, when making his speech on merger, did not have the guts to deny that we are going to have special rights. In this case, he was at least a little more frank than the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan Sosialis, on the one hand, advocate genuine merger, but on the other hand, are afraid of internal security being handed over to the Federation Government. Therefore, their amendment about the so-called genuine merger and the automatic conversion of citizenship is nothing but a smokescreen and a camouflage. Their method is just like the Cow King in Chinese mythology who was trying to stop the Monkey God from climbing over a certain mountain. They have done so many for the interests of a few people in the Barisan Sosialis. Their act cannot cover their attempt and intention to prevent a merger of Singapore with the Federation. Because of this, I come forward to oppose strongly the amendment.

7.27 p.m.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I go to the question proper, I would crave your indulgence to express my personal feelings on the -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Is it a point of order?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Is the Member allowed to give her impressions of what has happened in the past few days, instead of going direct to the point?

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the tabling of this motion by the Minister for Labour, there have been certain unfortunate events in Singapore. I do not know whether it is unfortunate to the Government or to the Speaker. Well -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member should speak a little slowly so that the interpreters will be able to translate.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel that the most unfortunate part is the dangerous situation into which he himself has landed. This can be written as a sort of adventure story -

Mr Lee Khoon Choy rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Yes. Is all this relevant to the amendment?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Of course, the Chair will make a ruling whether it is relevant to the amendment or not.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Since our Parliamentary Secretary is so very nervous about it, I had better leave it alone.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the Member is speaking too fast and too loud. Will she please speak slowly so that the interpreter will be able to do the interpretation?

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the amendment tabled by the Member for Queenstown, who is the Chairman of our Party. I feel that this amendment of ours is meant to strengthen and enhance the spirit of the original motion. It is not intended to sabotage the principle of the original motion. We can see this very clearly. From our amendment and the speeches made by Members of the Barisan Sosialis, we clearly show our sincere desire for a reunification of our countries. We have given many examples to explain the difference between a true merger and a phoney merger. We have spoken sincerely on parliamentary democracy, but the Ministers in the Government accuse us of talking empty words. Whenever Members of the Barisan Sosialis criticise them for their faults, we see from their expressions that they are very worried. They try to cover their personal feelings by laughing. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Ministers accuse us of having made empty talk.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member should bear in mind that she must speak on the amendment and not on the Minister. Will she confine herself to the amendment?

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): These remarks of mine are relevant to the amendment because in the last few days we have talked a great deal on this question, but the Ministers say that we are indulging in empty talk. I am saying that this is not true.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, they cannot take the advice given by us. I can liken their behaviour to this story. There is a musician playing to a cow but it cannot appreciate the music.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chew Chua): Where is the cow?

Mr Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows that there is no cow in this Assembly and she must not imply that any Member of this Assembly is a cow.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not pinpointing anybody as a cow. I am just telling a story. The Ministers in the Government do not heed our advice. We cannot force them to do so.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: What advice?

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): If they cannot take heed of what we say, it does not matter. But we can repeat what we have said to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the people out side.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member should bear in mind that she is addressing the Chair and not the Members on the opposite side.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Government are truly representative of the people and want to listen sincerely to the people, they must have heard about what the people are talking in the streets, lanes and coffee-shops. If they have not heard about what is spoken, I can tell them now. I have other things to tell them. They do not have to worry about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that the hon. Member should not address Members on the opposite side. She should address the Chair.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): I think you are unfair. These people are talking about something, but you do not stop them.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member is indulging in an argument with the Chair, then I think I will have to use the Standing Order.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me tell them now in this House that the people are saying that the P.A.P. is coming to an end.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Goodbye!

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): The people are saying that the P.A.P. Government is proposing a phoney merger or a sell-out merger. The people are also saying [Interruption] - well, do you want to listen to this? The people are also saying that the Barisan Sosialis Members are very right in what they say, especially on the citizenship question. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a factual reflection. I am not lying in this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very surprised because all of a sudden the P.A.P. seems to be interested in merger. But the P.A.P. is actually interested in a phoney merger and not a true merger. They do not support our amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all the people in Malaya and Singapore have a common but tragic history. The British colonialists are to be blamed for the artificial separation between Singapore and the Federation, otherwise there would not have been this need now for a reunification of the two territories. The aim of all patriots is to break down this artificial barrier, because the reunification of the two territories will bring about greater democratic rights to the people and prosperity to the country. Therefore, we hope that our territories will come together again as soon as possible. Since we have made a beginning on merger, we must sit round the table and talk about it amongst ourselves. This Government should not go and talk about it with somebody else and then come to this House to tell us that we must accept their merger proposals. It was because of this that we have moved an amendment to the motion. Our amendment is just like a ship with a compass sailing to a true merger so that we will not be misled and lose our way. In this way, some 600,000 people of Singapore will not be brought to the edge of a cliff. This is one of the reasons for the amendment to the motion. Another reason is that we have completely lost our confidence in the P.A.P. Government. Since the Government came into power, it has done many things to the disappointment of the people. We cannot entrust the question of merger and the livelihood of the people of Singapore in the hands of the P.A.P. Government alone. We want the P.A.P. Government to give a clear explanation to us and to the people of Singapore so that we can then have a chance to decide for ourselves, otherwise the Government has no right to represent the people of Singapore on the question of merger.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I feel that our amendment is just like a mirror which can reflect the reactionary appearance of the Government. By means of this mirror, we can really tell who is interested in a true merger and who is interested in a phoney merger.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope the Government will not try to play up communal feelings, because communal feelings, hatred and conflicts are very unfortunate and tragic. This will do nobody any good, either to the country or to the people. If the P.A.P. resort to such dangerous means in order to save their political career, then I advise them not to do it. I hope the P.A.P. Government will think carefully before they disregard my advice.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope out friends in U.M.N.O. know the true situation so that we can still maintain our friendship with them. As the Member for Anson has said, we have not made any personal attack on the Tunku. We do not have any communal discrimination. All along we have been living together. So let us be calm.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to refute a statement made by the Member for Cairnhill. He said that the amendment is redundant and repetitive. I feel it is not redundant at all. I say it is very appropriate. It can be likened to this. When you go to a cold country, you must bring more clothes with you to keep yourself warm so that you will not be frozen. This can also be likened to people who have to put on glasses.

The second point is this. The Member for Cairnhill has said that some people are afraid of internal security falling into the hands of the Federation Government. I will say that he is not correct. If we have true merger, we are prepared to accept that. The Member for Cairnhill seems to be on the side of the Government by defending them on a false premise. So I must quote the Member for Cairnhill - this is reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 23rd November this year. The Member for Cairnhill, talking about some people's fear of internal security falling into the Federation Government's hands, is reported to have said that the Federation Government, after merger, might take action on behalf of the P.A.P. Govern ment. He says that this will not happen because at present the Internal Security Council has a representative of the Federation who does not interfere with or instruct the Singapore Government to do this or to do that. This has been the position for the past two years, and therefore, we should not fear.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us say that this is true. Therefore, if we have no claim to make, then there should not be any opposition. If a child is good and well behaved, there is no need to punish him. But the fact does not seem to be like this. Very often we hear the Government claiming that the Internal Security Council has given the Government a lot of trouble, particularly in respect of the release of political detainees. The Government say they have tried to argue this question in the Internal Security Council, but in vain. I do not know what is the actual voting which makes their attempt fail. The assurance of the Member for Cairnhill seems to have come from nowhere because he is not a member of the Internal Security Council. So I am just wondering how he got this information.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me talk about the speech of the Minister for Culture. He is a man with the "Ah Q" spirit. From his speech, we can see that these words prey on his mind, "The First Prime Minister of Malaysia". He is trying to distort the fact that the people should have more democratic rights. He tries to say that Members of the Barisan Sosialis use this right of the people to gain more constituencies. He disregards the problem that comes with the increase in constituencies, i.e., the people must have more democratic rights after merger so that they will be able to move freely in the eleven States in the Federation.

Now, let me quote the Minister for Culture. He said, "It is only when people in the Federation have more favourable terms than the people of Singapore that this term "second-class citizenship" can be established. That is to say, people in the Federation can come and stand for election in Singapore, but those in Singapore cannot go there and stand for election, i.e. to enjoy the same rights, and it is only when such a position has come about that this term "second-class citizenship" can be said to be true and correct. There is equality only when the people can enjoy common rights."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from this part of his speech, we can say that the term "second-class citizenship" is true; because in a reunification, the people must be able to enjoy equal rights. But how is it that after merger, the people of Singapore are confined only to the small island of Singapore and the people in the Federation are confined to their own territory in Malaya? If that is the case, how could you have merger, and where is the reunification? I must point out in particular that after merger Singapore citizens can enjoy civic rights within the State of Singapore only, but the people in the Federation can enjoy civic rights in all the eleven States. So it is very correct for us to say that after merger Singapore citizens are second-class citizens. Can we ask the Minister for Culture with the "Ah Q" spirit to explain -

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Miss Fung Yin Ching resumed her seat.

Mr Rajaratnam: Is she saying that I have the "I. Q. spirit" or the "Ah Q spirit?"

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me again quote the Minister for Culture.

Mr Rajaratnam: Ah Q.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Yes. This is what the Minister for Culture said in his speech which was reported in the Sin Chew fit Poh of 22nd November:

'I feel that this claim for automatic con version of citizenship is a sabotage. These people who seem to be interested in merger are actually afraid of merger. They have left the P.A.P. not because of the merger question only.'

Can we say that this claim of automatic conversion of citizenship is not the basic right which should be given to the people of Singapore after merger? If the people should be denied such a fundamental right, then how can you call this a merger? All this talk of sabotaging merger when actually we are trying to damage the phoney merger of the P.A.P.

As to their saying that we left the P.A.P. is not purely because of the question of merger, we say in reply that it is true, because at the time we left the P.A.P., there was no such controversy as one of true merger or phoney merger. This question of merger was then not conspicuous or clear. We left the P.A.P. because there was no internal democracy, and the leadership of the P.A.P. could not accept the views, of their members. After they have taken office, they do things at their own will -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I have reminded hon. Members that the debate is on the amendment and not on the reason why the Barisan Sosialis left the P.A.P. and so on. So will the hon. Member please confine the debate to the subject of the motion?

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this was touched upon by the Minister for Culture during his speech. So I must offer some explanation.

At that time we were dissatisfied with the P.A.P. and so we left it. We left the P.A.P. for this reason and not because of the merger question. Now, let me quote the Minister for Culture again for the third time. This is a report in the Sin Chew fit Poh of 24th November, in which the Minister is reported to have said this:

'If the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are really interested in having a merger, then they must unconditionally leave their objective for abolishing -'

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.