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

2.53 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."

Mr Speaker: May I again draw the attention of hon. Members to the announcement I made earlier on in which I invited hon. Members to adopt one of two courses, i.e., to subject themselves to self-discipline and so to see that their speeches are not unnecessarily lengthy and to avoid unnecessary repetition. Copies of that announcement have been circulated.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today I wish to criticise the Minister for Culture on two points. This will conclude my speech. What the Minister for Education said was published on 24th November, in the Sin Chew Jit Poh. The Minister for Education said that if the Barisan Sosialis leaders were sincere in fighting for a complete merger, then they should give up their fight for a full internal self-government -

Mr Speaker: Order. Could it be made clear whether it is the Minister for Culture or the Minister for Education?

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): The Minister for Culture. He said the aim of full internal self-government would negate the goal of complete merger. It would also cause racial conflict between Singapore and the Federation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret what the Minister for Culture said on this point. The stand of the Barisan Sosialis is very clear.

We have made our proposals based on the present situation in Singapore:

1. Complete merger. The content of this merger is that defence and external affairs will be vested in the hands of the Federation Government. Singapore citizens on Merger Day should automatically become Federal citizens and there should be proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament.

2. A form of confederation. The content is that defence and external affairs should be vested in the Federation by arrangement, but Singapore should have complete control of its internal affairs.

3. If these two proposals are not acceptable to the Federation, then we should put aside our fight for merger and be prepared to negotiate with Britain for a self-governing Singapore by 1963.

The Minister for Culture confused these two things. I feel that he either deliberately want-ed to confuse these two points or that he was not very clear about them. According to the analysis of the Minister for Culture, he said that if we did this, then we would be causing racial conflict between the two territories. I feel that the Minister for Culture wanted to distort our struggle through constitutional means as something which would create racial troubles. Secondly, the Minister for Culture said that according to the complete merger proposals made by the Barisan Sosialis, under which Singapore citizens would become Federal citizens, Singapore citizens would lose because they would have to accept the 4:1 ratio in the civil service, which is now applicable in the Federation. Therefore, we said that under the Barisan Sosialis proposals, they would have to accept the fact that privileges would be given to Malays. I wonder if, after merger, the Chinese in Singapore will lose and the Malays will benefit from these proposals. If this is so, why are our proposals not accepted by the Tunku? Does the Tunku want to fight for the interests of only the Chinese? I cannot understand it. The Government said that the motive behind our proposals on citizenship is that we want to contest an election in the Federation to sit in the Federal Parliament. I want to issue a challenge. If the citizens of Singapore will derive any benefits from all this, after merger then we will make every sacrifice to achieve this aim.

In conclusion, I support the amendment of the Barisan Sosialis because it proposes that the people of Singapore will get more democratic rights after merger.

3.02 p.m.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo (Bras Basah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown is not sincere. Let me now analyse the proposals. What is their object in proposing this amendment? The question of merger was raised and discussed when they were in the P.A.P. At that time, the Member for Queenstown did not object to our proposals on merger. Why does he now hold a different opinion on this question? This year, there have been some changes in our Party. The Members of the Barisan Sosialis launched a revolution to ensure for themselves the posts of Prime Minister and Ministers. I want to tell the people of Singapore that they do not want to fight for the benefit of the people. They want to fight for their own personal interest.

During the Anson by-election, the break-away from our Party was mainly due to the demand of some trade unionists that they should have a discussion with Britain for full internal self-government. That was after our defeat in Hong Lim. That is why these politicians are now sitting on the other side. They have defected from our Party. Therefore, we can say that they are waverers. They do not have a firm stand. They are politicians.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me ask this question. What are the fears of the trade unions if merger is achieved? As far as I understand, the question of merger was raised by the Prime Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman. The P.A.P. then agreed to his proposals in principle, because this is what we have been fighting for since the inception of our Party. At that time, some colonial officers came to Singapore and this caused fears in the trade union movement. They were afraid that if we merge with the Right-wing Federation, it would :then be disadvantageous to the Left-wing forces in Singapore. They have their problems and we understand this. In those days, they suspected that there was something fishy in the discussions held with the colonial officers. That is why the trade unionists started their fight against us. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was because of this that these opportunistic politicians were frightened. At that time, they thought that if they aligned with the trade unionists -

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): On a point of order. Is the hon. Member talking on the party issue or on the merger issue?

Mr Speaker: I am just trying to pick up the threads of the hon. Lady's argument. I have not as yet come to the conclusion that she is very irrelevant.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, every episode has its causes and its results. Now I want to talk on the causes of what is happening. What the Barisan Sosialis wish for is not in accordance with reality. They thought that if they aligned with the trade unionists, they could topple the P.A.P. Government and they could hold the posts of Prime Minister and Ministers. But their hopes were dashed to pieces. That is why they are now opposing us, saying that our merger proposal is a sort of sell-out.

Mr Speaker: Order. It does seem to me now that the hon. Lady is going a little far away from the motion. Parts of this party strife, of course, are relevant but other parts are not.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, they always say that we sell out the people.

When the merger question was raised, they wanted to force us to resign so that they could have a general election. I feel that it was very mean of them to have indulged in these tactics. If they had the courage, they should have raised this question when they were in the Party. But since they dared not do this when they were in the Party, then they are the people who are wavering.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me ask them whether we are really selling out the people. We have never sold out the interests of the people. I feel that the question is one of either conditional or unconditional merger. The Members of the Opposition say that we are selling out the interests of the people. Let me state that all these merger proposals will have to be decided by the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Lady could modulate her voice because I find it difficult to hear the interpreter if she raises her voice. Madam Hoe.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): We know that the Minister for Home Affairs has introduced the Singapore National Referendum Bill. The people will then decide whether they accept our merger proposals. Yet the Barisan Sosialis accuse us of selling out the people. This is a groundless accusation. Some of the Members opposite have also said that we should resign. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have read a Chinese book called "The Three Kingdoms" and I still remember a part of it. Tsao Tsao had a son called Tsao Chih. Another son called Tsao Pei tried usurp the kingship when Tsao Tsao died, and Tsao Chih wrote a poem to his brother saying, "We are born of the same family. Why do you persecute me?" From this, we can see the attitude of the Barisan Socialis. They try to force us to resign. They claim that they have the overwhelming support of the people and that we have lost the confidence of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody really knows who represents the people. If the Barisan Sosialis Members can say that they represent the people, then how can they explain that at the time when they were in the P.A.P. they wore P.A.P. badges and P.A.P. uniform?

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Lady should try not to get too excited. I have also indicated that I do not like Members pointing to other Members. Sometimes it is all right but at other times it might be a little intimidating or it might be offensive.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although I make gestures, I am still addressing you.

Sir, if they say that the people are supporting them, then they should resign their seats, which they won on the P.A.P. ticket, and then fight the new elections. If they were elected again, then they could say that they have the support of the people. Before the breakup, they did represent the P.A.P., and therefore I hope these ex-colleagues do not ask too much of us.

Mr Speakers Sir, on this issue of merger, we believe there should be conditional merger because we have been separated from the Federation for quite some time. We are developing on different lines. The P.A.P. have analysed the situation both in Singapore and the Federation, and that is why we propose this conditional merger. Our ex-colleagues also previously supported this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the education policy, we have suggested autonomy in education in our proposals for merger. We can see the situation of secondary school students in Singapore today. That is why we have suggested this conditional merger because we are afraid of such things. But from the personal viewpoint, I believe there is something in the Chinese education policy which I cannot accept. Some of them are unreasonable. Complete merger as proposed by the Barisan Sosialis is, therefore, contradictory. I am Chinese, educated. I am now learning English. And if I were to answer Chinese question papers in English, I think it would be difficult for me. Similarly, if we accept the Federation education policy, many people in Singapore will resent it. Those heroes who are protecting Chinese education - what are they now? I believe their aim is just to embarrass us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel it is important to have autonomy in labour, because when the P.A.P. framed its labour policy, we had specially emphasised it since most of the members and cadres of the Party come from the field of labour. We have therefore suggested autonomy in labour in order to look after the privileges of the workers. If we do not make such a suggestion, then our ex-colleagues, i.e., the Barisan Sosialis members will accuse us of selling out the workers. They are bound to say this. They claim to represent the workers, and yet they want to accept the labour policy of the Federation. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the Backbenchers in the Opposition not to interject so frequently? I am finding difficulty in following the hon. Member because of the interpretation. Interjections will not improve matters at all.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me explain the citizenship issue. We have made a detailed announcement that Singapore citizens have a right to elect their own representatives to the Federal Parliament. But some people say that we are unfair. I will say this: it is very fair because Singapore citizens can elect their own representatives, but no Federation citizens can vote and stand for election in Singapore. We cannot go, and they cannot come. That is why I say it is fair. If we say we cannot go but they can come, then it is unfair. It is nonsensical to say we are selling out the people of Singapore on the citizenship issue.

Miss Fung Yin Ching rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): I only wish to make an explanation.

Mr Speaker: Order. I understood the Member for Stamford to rise on a point of order. If it is a point of explanation, then she cannot make the explanation unless the Member for Bras Basah gives way. I do not know whether the Member for Bras Basah will give way. Will she?

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, she has already spoken a lot. She wants to interrupt me. I am not afraid. I have no notes. I can answer her any time.

Mr Speaker: I have no doubt the Member for Bras Basah has no notes. I have not seen her looking at any notes. But let us not have a battle of the female sex!

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, she wanted to interrupt me so that she thought I could not continue.

I am now analysing the citizenship issue. As I said, we cannot go and they cannot come. This is fair. It is true that it is not too good for the citizens of Singapore. In Singapore we have the Barisan Sosialis and in the Federation of Malaya we have the Socialist Front. If the Barisan Sosialis in Singapore and the Socialist Front in the Federation could both win some seats and formed a majority of representatives, then they could form their own government. If this happens, we can then say that the Federation is under the control of Singapore. So we cannot say that we are selling out the people of Singapore. That is why I think that whatever they have said on merger is just to distort the issue and to further their own individual aims. That is why we have to oppose them. We are going to analyse this and tell it to all the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days the Opposition Members have been attacking us. I feel very sad. Even before our common enemy is defeated, our ex-colleagues want to kill us now, and do not give us a chance. They are too ruthless.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): The Member for Bras Basah says that we are going to kill the Members of the Government.

Mr Speaker: I am sure the Member for Havelock is by no means intimidated by that statement. I think probably that word is used metaphorically.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, many of our colleagues have analysed this merger issue. I have also read it in the newspapers, and I have also read the criticisms on merger. They accuse us of alleging that they are Communists. That accusation came from the Member for Nee Soon. He said that we accused them of being Communists. Let me clarify it: we have never alleged that they are Communists. We were only analsing the situation. The Member for Nee Soon has no qualification to become a Communist, because he is a waverer. He will never be accepted as a Communist. So I ask him not to be too worried over his lack of qualifications to become a Communist. If he wants to become a puppet, perhaps -

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member saying that the Member for Nee Soon has no qualification to become a Communist?

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): It was because during the course of the debate, he levelled some accusations at us. That is why I am only making some kind of explanation to show that he was only smearing us and that we are trying to show that he is pink in colour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you will be fair in this debate. If they resort to these tactics to deal with us, perhaps we can excuse them because most of them are rather young, and perhaps quite stern; and quite rightly so.

3.30 p.m.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed regrettable that in a debate on such a major issue affecting the future of the people of Singapore, the Ministers of the P.A.P. Government should have displayed such a lack of seriousness. Perhaps, Sir, they were so perturbed by what the Member for Queenstown, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, said in his address that they became so inattentive. But, Sir, I would rather like to believe that they were all suffering from a very serious attack of cold and thus a little hard of hearing. As it is, Sir, both the Hon. the Minister for Culture and the Hon, the Minister for Education have wasted our time by dealing with points which have been dealt with and disposed of by the Member for Queenstown. For instance, they both challenged the Barisan Sosialis Members to state categorically whether the Party was prepared to accept the labour and education policies of the Government of the Federation of Malaya and all that they implied.

I believe, Sir, the Member for Queens-town has explained our stand on this. This stand, Sir, did not find favour with the Member for Geylang Serai, and he said' so. I know he is not suffering from any cold. I shall, Sir, later on explain in some detail our attitude to the policies of the Federation Government. But I would like to say first this much. The Barisan Sosialis, unlike the P.A.P., faces facts and is not afraid to state clearly what it feels. In our policy statement, Sir, we called the Federation Government's education policy misguided. Further, we expressed our desire to change it on merger. I have not, Sir, come across any P.A.P. statement which dares categorically to condemn the Federation Government's policy. Its leaders only whisper that they are opposed to the Rahman Talib Report. Sir, I dare the Government to state clearly and unequivocally that they are opposed to the Rahman Talib Report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is of greater significance is that these men, who call themselves Malayan nationalists and socialists, now aspire only to see some social improvement in Singapore. They say that the Federation Government's policies are wrong. At least they say so in private, Sir. All today now agree to the policies of a Right-wing Government. Let us be generous, Sir, and assume that they are a shade different from the S.P.A. Members who sit on this side of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in short, we have a situation in which there are men who call themselves Malayans and who disagree with the Federation Government's policies, but who will not seek a constitutional way to change these policies. These people, Mr Speaker, Sir, are supposed to be Malayan nationalists. Sir, their very actions betray them to be no more than - it is a pity, Sir, that the Minister for Culture is not here - petty parish - pump politicians, whose politics and socialism are confined to the use of convenient words and phraseology in which our Dr Goebbels, the Minister for Culture, specialise. I would very much like to call them, Sir, "parish-pump patriots". But in the face of the sell-out of the political rights of the people of Singapore, it grieves me to say, Sir, that one just has to face facts, however bitter they are. The word "patriot" would sound completely hollow in the light of their actions.

Sir, the Minister for Finance has attempted to sour relationship between the Barisan Sosialis and the Government of the Federation of Malaya by accusing us of trying to topple the Federation Government. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis is a Socialist Party, and we believe in the establishment of a socialist society for the whole of Malaya. We are not afraid to say this publicly. We must, therefore, if we are to be true to our aim, strive to bring about by constitutional means, a government for the people of Malaya which will establish a socialist society for the whole country. We know that the present Government in the Federation of Malaya does not believe in socialism. In fact, the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, has said this much. We all know that the present Federation Government is a Right-wing Govern, ment. Therefore, in order to bring about socialism for our country and our people we must, of course, try by peaceful and constitutional means to convince the people of Malaya that our policies are better than those of the present Government of the Federation of Malaya. If the people agree with us and decide that we should be their Government, then we will, of course, under those circumstances, replace the present Federation Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Day-dream!

Mr Bani: This, Sir, is not day-dream. Day-dreaming is only with people who have no basic political beliefs. As far as Members of the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, they are men with fundamental, basic political convictions. What is wrong with seeking to change the Government of the Federation in these circumstances, Sir? After all, we are operating a parliamentary set-up, If democracy is to mean the will of the majority, then let the people decide in free and open competition. Sir, it is for the people to have the final say. I wonder whether the P.A.P., which professes to be a Socialist Party, is trying to tell us that this is not also their aim. Or is the P.A.P., having lost the support of the people of Singapore whom we all know are socialist-minded, now trying to ensure its political future by securing the support of the Rightwing Government in the Federation? Mr Speaker, Sir, can one blame us for accusing the P.A.P. for having deviated from its original Left-wing stand?

Sir, the Member for Nee Soon has in his speech quoted at length the P.A.P. policy statements in the 4th Anniversary Souvenir publication. He has clearly shown that it was also the aim of the P.A.P. to topple the Federation Government. I need not have to repeat all these things once again. Suffice it for me to say that if the P.A.P. sincerely believes in socialism, then the only way to bring about socialism is for it to replace the present Federation Government, which we all know is not a socialist Government. Sir, it would be relevant here for me to say that the Prime Minister has personally told me many times of his own feelings towards the Federation Government. The Minister for Finance should realise that it was also the Prime Minister's personal intention to topple the Federation Government. Mr Speaker. Sir, unlike the Prime Minister, I am not in the habit of relating in public conversations made in private. But, Sir, extreme hypocrisy is an intolerable business for one to witness. Sir, the Prime Minister has told me in private - told many of us in the past - of his views about the Tunku. They are not in harmony with his grand public cry now, namely, calling the Tunku a great nationalist and placing him with Asian patriots -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think it proper for any Member of this Assembly, to comment on the Tunku personally in this manner. It might be taken that sarcasm is being used. I think it is not right for any Member to say anything which might conceivably give offence to the Prime Minister of friendly country.

Mr Bani: I appreciate it, Sir,It is not my intention to say anything that could be construed to be offensive to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. It is not my intention to say: what I think of the Tunku. All that I want to explain is the attitude of our Prime Minister, the things that he says today publicly and the things that he had been telling us for years in private This is relevant here, Sir. Of course, as you know, the Barisan Sosialis has been accused of being anti the Federation Government and of having as one of its intentions the toppling of the Federation Government. When I was just now referring to the attitude of our Prime Minister, I wanted to say, Sir, that I remember clearly once when our Prime Minister was then a -

Mr Chan Chee Seng rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Chan Chee Seng: On a point of order, Sir. Regarding what the Member for Thomson has spoken just now, may I ask if it has anything to do with the amendment in hand?

Mr Speaker: I understood that all this was leading up to the point that the Barisan Sosialis think that with what they call a genuine merger, or with their own concept of a merger, it would be able to topple the Federation.

Mr Bani: I was saying, Sir, that I remember clearly our Prime Minister - he was then a simple, plain Mr Lee Kuan Yew - told me and Mr Dominic Puthucheary that the Tunku was a duffer -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think I can allow this trend of debate. What an hon. Member says in his personal capacity must not be mentioned in this Assembly. It is akin to the personal conduct of an hon. Member, and it can only be disclosed or debated on a substantive motion.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, all that I want to establish here is that it was also the intention of the Prime Minister and the P.A.P. Government to topple the Federation Governments because, by their own admission, the Federation Government was a Right-wing Government and, therefore, today, if the Barisan Sosialis says the Rahman Talib Report is misguided or the education policy of the Federation Government is misguided, there is nothing sinister or unusual about it.

You will recall, Sir, what the Minister for Finance said. Why I say this is merely to show that what the Minister for Finance accused us of, was also the original intention of the P.A.P. Government, and I have no doubt whatsoever, Sir, that it is the personal ambition of our Prime Minister to be the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya one of these days, if he can help it.

Sir, as far as we in the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, we make no secret of our views. We respect the Tunku because he is the popularly elected leader of the people of the Federation of Malaya. As socialists, we disagree with his views and we have the courage of our convictions to state publicly that so long as the Tunku and the Alliance Government pursue Right-wing policies, it shall be our responsibility to seek a change in these policies by normal, peaceful and constitutional methods.

Sir, the Minister for Finance also alleged that it was wrong for us to demand full, complete merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca and also to demand the automatic conversion of all Singapore citizens to Federal citizens on merger. The Minister for Finance, I note, Sir, has conveniently kept away from the Chamber. I would rather he listen to this. He said that we now realise our mistake in referring to Penang and Malacca and that we have started changing our propaganda line. Sir, this accusation, I believe, was subsequently repeated by the Minister for Culture and also, I think, by the Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, when we referred to Singapore merging completely with the Federation, like Penang and Malacca, we were merely referring to the fact that Singapore, Penang and Malacca were originally the three Straits Settlements under direct colonial rule without any Malay sultanage. Our point was that if Penang and Malacca, which were both colonial territories like Singapore, could be merged completely with the Federation as constituent States, then Singapore could also be merged as a constituent States. There is nothing contradictory between this and our demand for automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federal citizens on complete merger. Sir, when Penang and Malacca were joined to the Federation of Malaya and Singapore at the same time was separated from the mainland, the three Straits Settlements were all in the most elementary stage of colonial rule. There was no degree of self-government whatsoever in any of the Straits Settlements. Penang and Malacca, when they were joined to the Federation, did not have any State citizenship. So was the case of Singapore in those days. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, since its separation from the mainland, Singapore has developed on its own to almost complete self-government and has thereby acquired a State citizenship of its own together with a Head of State. This, Sir, is just hard political reality. It is an objective factor which we simply cannot ignore. If Singapore is to merge with the Federation now, then the Federation, if it is sincere in wanting merger, has to recognise this hard political reality and take in Singapore as it is now, and not as it was at the time of separation. Sir, the 11 States in the Federation of Malaya and Singapore may be compared to a family of 12 people, and one member of this family was unfortunately separated by the British from the rest of the family when it was still a small boy. This boy, Sir, we can call Singapore. At the time of separation. Singapore and all the other members of the family were small boys. Sir, it is now 16 years since they were separated. During this period, this small boy, Singapore, has developed in stature and maturity and is now a fully grown-up man, though still under British bondage. He has also got married and has children of his own. Now, he likes to join back with the rest of his family. Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be very unfair for the other 11 brothers to demand that this boy, Singapore, should divorce his wife and leave his children before he could join the rest of his family, especially, Sir, when we find that these 11 other brothers have also, in the meanwhlie, got married and have children of their own. It is unfair, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this boy, Singapore, who is now a full grown-up man, should join with the rest of his family with his wife and children, and not as though he were a bachelor when he is not, in fact, a bachelor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has tried to give the impression that it is unreasonable to demand automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federal citizenship because many of our citizens are not from here and are supposed to have less than 10 years' residence. This 10-year residential qualification, Sir, is only required for those who are applying for Federal citizenship under the naturalisation laws. Sir, I must emphasise that the majority of those Singapore citizens who were not born here have acquired their citizenship by virture of the eight-year residential qualification in 1957. That is by now four years later. These people have already been residing here for 12 years, and by 1963, when merger is supposed to take place, they will have at least 14 years' residence. Sir, these people will have, in fact, four years in excess of their 10-year residential qualification. The only group of people who do not have the 10-year residential qualification are those who were born either in the Federation of Malaya or in the United Kingdom and Colonies. Sir, we have already put forth a question asking for the exact number of Singapore citizens who require citizenship by this provision of the 1957 Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, and as you know, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs refused to give these figures on the grounds that they were not available. We know that the number of this group is very small - about -

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder if the hon. Member is correct in his statement that tie Parliamentary Secretary refused to give information. Probably the phrase was "unable to give information because it was not available." I think that was the answer given. He was unable to give the information because it was not available. I think the hon. Member should be fair on that point.

Mr Bani: I did say, Sir, that the grounds which were used were that these figures were not available.

Mr Speaker: The point, of course, is - I may be wrong - that I think the hon. Member for Thomson did use the word "refused". That is completely misrepresenting the whole position.

Mr Bani: I withdraw the word "refused", Sir. I was saying that we know that the number of this group of people is very small, between 20,000 and 30,000 people, and most of them were born in Malaya and could not be considered as foreigners anyway. Sir, they were born in a country with whom we are trying to merge. So how can we grudge them Federal citizenship rights? These people were born in the Federation, and are able to qualify for Federal citizenship under the present Federal Constitution with only a five-year residential qualification and not a 10-year residential qualification. Apart from this, Sir, the rest of this group of about 20,000 to 30,000 Singapore citizens are those ex-servicemen and expatriates who have chosen to take up Singapore citizenship, and their number is very, very small, probably only a few thousand. Sir, because of this few thousand, all the 630,000-odd Singapore citizens are going to be deprived of Federal citizenship rights. What kind of lame excuse is this?

Sir, the question of automatic Federal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens on merger has been dealt with in great detail by my colleague, the Member for Queenstown, and I do not wish to repeat what he has said, though it is regrettable that the English Press - the Straits Times - unlike the non-English Press, has completely blacked out the detailed but extremely important arguments put forward by him on this question of citizenship. Sir, I wish to say here that this Assembly is an extremely important medium of public expression in the State. But by itself the value of this Assembly as a medium of public expression is very limited, for only a few score of members of the public can be accommodated in the Gallery each day. Its usefulness therefore, Sir, depends heavily on a responsible Press which will report justly and fairly on the proceedings. But unfortunately, Sir, the only English newspaper in the country has now, like Radio Singapore, become virtually the private mouthpiece of the P.A.P. Government.

Sir, as you may know, on 21st November, 1961, at 10.30 p.m., Radio Singapore gave a half-hour report on the proceedings of this Assembly, and though the Member for Queenstown spoke for 3� hours that day, whereas the Minister for Finance spoke for barely one hour, the entire half-hour report was devoted only to the speech of the Minister for Finance.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): On a point of clarification.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Mr Rajaratnam: If the Member for Thomson had listened to the seven o'clock news that night, the whole period was given over to the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Bani: I point out to the Minister for Culture that I am speaking on the report that was dished out at 10.30 p.m., and that what was said in the seven o'clock news is not a matter that I am discussing now?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Thomson has made his point. But if he goes on quoting instance after instance, he will probably be considered to be completely irrelevant or going further and further away from the amendment we are debating.

Mr Bani: I assure you, Sir, it is not my intention to repeat. Since the Minister for Culture appears to be allergic when Radio Singapore is mentioned, I shall confine my remarks to the Straits Times.

Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to all newspapers in the country, and to the radio as well, that at least on this vital issue of merger, let there be fair and just reporting of the proceedings of this Assembly. Let the public be as fully informed as possible on this extremely important issue which is going to affect not only the present generation but also future generations.

Sir, as I was saying, this citizenship question is the crux of the whole matter. It is the most vital issue in merger. It is by a careful study of all the implications of this arrangement for separate citizen ship under the P.A.P.'s phoney merger that we will be able to realise the extent of the treachery and betrayal of the P.A.P. Government. That is why, Sir, the Government-controlled Radio Singapore and the pro-Government Straits Times have so carefully avoided reporting all the ugly revelations of the P.A.P.'s citizenship arrangement. Sir, it is on the crux of this whole matter that the P.A.P. have tried to bluff the people wholesale. The P.A.P. have tried to achieve this by deliberately misleading and misinforming the people on constitutional facts and citizenship laws.

Sir, to avoid repetition, I merely wish to summarise the salient points in the argument. Sir, under the P.A.P.'s sellout arrangement, Singapore citizens will be kept isolated from the rest of the Federation people by being given a separate citizenship. This separate citizenship is unique only to the people of Singapore and will not be shared by the rest of the people in the other 11 States of the Federation. After this phoney merger, Sir, Singapore citizens will not be allowed to participate in political activities in the Federation because they will not have Federal citizenship rights, although they will be so-called Federal nationals. The citizens of the 11 other States of the Federation will all share common citizenship rights, which are separate altogether from Singapore citizenship rights. Thus a citizen, say from Johore, will be entitled to participate in political activities throughout the 11 States in the Federation - something which the Singapore citizens will not be able to do. The fact that Singapore citizens and Federal citizens will share a common nationality is irrelevant here, because within the Federation what matters is not your Federal nationality but your Federal citizenship, without which you will, for practical purposes, be treated as an alien, Though in theory Federal citizens will not be entitled to participate in political activities in Singapore, in practice we can be sure they will interfere wholesale in the political activities of Singapore, simply because the Central Government will be under the control of the Federation of Malaya.

Sir, this right to have full participation in the political life of a nation is something very fundamental in any parliamentary democratic set-up. Sir, when we asked for this basic democratic right for the people of Singapore, we were accused by the Minister for Culture that we are asking for this right because we in the Barisan Sosialis wish to stand for election in the Federation, and that it is because of this personal political interest that we are trying to oppose the P.A.P.'s phoney merger proposals. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an utter and complete distortion of the truth. It is regrettable that the Minister for Culture could not refrain from being personal even in his political analysis. [Interruption] In fact, most of his so-called political analysis has been based on personalities. I believe he is the author of several articles in the various anniversary publications of the P.A.P. which sought to give credit for the success of the P.A.P. at the previous election solely to the intelligence and genuine of the P.A.P. leadership, and not to the objective political factors as well as the dedication and work of the thousands of the rank and file of the P.A.P.

Sir, as I was saying, this fundamental right to a common political life with one's fellow brothers and sisters of the same nation is not a matter of the personal interest of politicians. I cannot, however, say for sure that the Prime Minister is not himself interested in seeking new political pastures in the Federation. [Interruption] For the Minister of Culture knows that our Prime Minister is to be found more often in the Federation than in Singapore these days. I am quite sure, Sir, that in the next general elections he will not dare to go back to Tanjong Pagar. This common political life is the mechanics, the framework of parliamentary democracy. It is the means by which the people of a country can influence and be influenced by one another so that they can together elect a government that will truly reflect the views and aspirations of the people as a whole.

Sir, this common political life is an extremely democratic channel whereby the grievances and aspirations of any section of our people can be fully expressed.

Sir, supposing after reunification the extremely democratic channel whereby that the Central Government is not caring for their interest and that it is adopting a repressive policy towards them, then they should have the right to inform the rest of the Malayan people of their injustices and neglect at the hands of the Central Government. They should have the right to persuade the rest of the Malayan people to elect a new government which will look after the interests of the people of Singapore as well. Without this right of mutual influence to mutual benefit, how are the people of the other eleven States in the Federation going to know whether the Central Government is treating us fairly and squarely? They may well be mistaken that the Central Government is, in fact, looking after everybody's interest equally and fairly, and may merrily reelect the same Government next time. This is especially so in the context of a situation wherein the Press and the radio are nothing but mere servile and willing handmaids of those in power. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the P.A.P.'s-

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member is fair in saying that the Press and the radio are the servile and willing helpers of those in power.

Mr Bani: Honestly, Sir, I do not see what is unfair when that is the position. By practice, our experience has shown, Sir, that there could be no other words parliamentary enough to be used to describe the manner in which the Press, particularly the Straits Times, leans to the Government.

Sir, under the P.A.P.'s sell-out, it is precisely this democratic right that will not be given to the people of Singapore, because we will not have Federal citizenship. We can be easily barred from entering the Federation after this so-called merger, even when we are presented with the so-called Federal nationality. We will not be able to participate in any campaign in the Federation for social and political changes for our people. We will not be able to form pan-Malayan political Parties or join political organisations in the Federation because we do not have Federal citizenship. In other words, Sir, as my colleague the Member for Queenstown has pointed out, we will be treated as outcasts, where our influence in national pan-Malayan affairs will be kept at a minimum: firstly, by political isolation, and secondly, by being given less than proportionate representation in the Parliament.

So while the people of Singapore cannot influence the people of the Federation under this phoney merger, the people of the Federation will, in practice, be able to come and influence the people of Singapore, even though they will not have Singapore citizenship. Even now, Sir, before any sort of merger, either genuine or phoney, has taken place, Federation politicians, notably members of the ruling Alliance Party, are frequently in Singapore making speeches and addressing rallies. What more after phoney merger has taken place! But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to assure that it is not that we mind in the least Federal citizens coming to Singapore to influence our people here. In fact, we welcome them here as brothers and sisters of the same family. But the people of Singapore must in turn be treated on the same footing. No relationship based entirely on one-sided benefits can give any lasting happiness to the peoples concerned. It is bound to cause some degree of jealousy and tension, which will increase as the days go by, until one day it may lead to the complete severance of whatever relationship that may originally have existed.

Sir, I hope the Tunku realises that the people of Singapore will not be happy with this relationship based on inequality. The Tunku, Sir, unlike our Prime Minister, is a gentleman with warm human feelings.

The Prime Minister: Three cheers for the big boy!

Mr Bani: You should have been here a bit earlier, but I cannot understand what -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Speaker has been here for a very good length of time!

Mr Bani: I beg your pardon, Sir. I meant the Hon, the Prime Minister.

What I cannot understand, Sir, is why he has agreed to treat the people of Singapore in this unequal manner. Is it because our Prime Minister has very cunningly misinformed him pf the exact aspiration of our people?

The Prime Minister: He reads the Press too, you know.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Bani: The Tunku must know that the Prime Minister of Singapore today stands discredited in the eyes of the people of Singapore. He is one whom the people do not trust any longer.

The Prime Minister: That is what you say.

Mr Bani: Why do you not go to Tanjong Pagar? Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that among wide sections of the people, the name of Lee Kuan Yew is held in contempt.

The P.A.P., Sir, alleges that in a complete and genuine merger, only about half of the Singapore citizens who were born here would automatically be granted Federal citizenship rights, and that the other half of our citizens who were not born here would automatically lose their citizenship status and would have to apply for Federal citizenship. So says the P.A.P. But, Sir, may I ask: what proportion of citizens will automatically get Federal citizenship rights under the proposed P.A.P. brand of merger? The answer, Sir, is n-o-n-e. Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact is that under the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, not a single Singapore citizen will have the right to automatic Federal citizenship. In fact, Sir, even those born in Singapore after this phoney merger will not be entitled to automatic Federal citizenship. All that they will have will be Singapore State citizenship, just like anyone born in Singapore today. How then can any Singapore citizen obtain the coveted status of a Federal citizen after this phoney merger which the P.A.P. is attempting to ram down our throats? We will have to apply for Federal citizenship under the citizenship laws of the Federation as they are today. However, before one could so apply, several pre-conditions will have to be complied with. The Singapore citizen must first go and stay in the Federation for at least ten years. After completing a stay of ten years, he will have to pass a Malay language test. Then, Sir, he has to satisfy the Federation Government that he is of good character, and by this, of course, Sir, is meant that his political views must be acceptable to the Federation Government.

I sincerely hope, Sir, the English newspaper, the Straits Times, will not black-out this once again. The people of Singapore have a right to know the full implications of this proposed phoney merger, and the papers of a country have a great duty - to inform them fairly and truthfully. Unfortunately, Sir, the English-educated section of our people have no alternative but to depend on the pro-Government Straits Times for their information. The Straits Times should realise that the English-educated too have a right to know the whole truth about their future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown has challenged the Government to deny the implications of their phoney merger. I am sure the public will have noted, Sir, that up till now the Government has not denied this ugly revelation. They cannot deny it, Sir, for it is simply the ugly truth, and they find it so injurious even to hear it if they choose to be outside. Sir, it is obvious that the P.A.P. has attempted to cover all these ugly truths by trying to mislead the people by using such vague talk as being equal under a common Federal nationality.

Sir, the P.A.P. is trying to camouflage its sell-out proposals by trying to mislead the people into believing that there is no material difference between Federal citizen and Federal national. Sir, the Government issued on 25th November a statement to explain the opinion given by the State Advocate-General. But, Sir, -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the document which was tabled by the Prime Minister on the 24th November for circulation to Members of the Legislative Assembly was dated 23rd November, 1961. If that is correct, then the statement that the Government issued the circular on the 25th November is not quite correct.

Mr Bani: I am sorry. When I said "the 25th", I meant the date on which it was published in the newspapers.

But, Sir, this so-called explanatory statement added many things which the State Advocate-General never said. For instance, Sir, the explanatory note referred to the first Merdeka Talks in London in 1956 when Mr Lim Ching Siong was alleged to have agreed to the proposals by the then Chief Minister. Mr David Marshall, who is now the Member for Anson. These proposals were actually a set of citizenship laws designed for an independent sovereign State of Singapore; a citizenship status that was to be called "national of Singapore", They were put up by the Singapore delegation, present among whom were also our Prime Minister. These proposals, as we know, were rejected by the British Government.

Sir, the whole intention behind this mischievous reference is very clear. It is to convey a false impression to the public that Mr Lirn Ching Siong agreed in 1956 to the people of Singapore becoming nationals, and the P.A.P. hopes to confuse the public into believing that Mr Lim Ching Siong has now changed his line. Sir, nothing is further from the truth. You will note, Sir, that the term "Singapore nationals" was used in the proposals of 1956 to mean a State citizenship status for the people of Singapore as an independent and sovereign State, and not in reference to Federal citizenship. Whereas now, Sir, in the context of merger, the term "Federal national" is being used by the P.A.P. to try to make us believe that it is a substitute for Federal citizenship, which we know is not true. There is absolutely no relevance whatsoever in that mischievous reference except to add confusion to the whole matter.

Sir, the State Advocate-General, Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim, has given a legal opinion on the term "national" of the new Federation. I regret to say, Sir, that the statement has not helped to clarify the issue. He has not added anything new to what has been said on the subject. The Sunday Times of the 26th November. 1961, has, of course, tried to make political capital for the Government by emphasising, in one sentence in the Government's interpretation of the State Advocate-General's opinion, that the two words "national" and "citizen" have the same meaning. Thus, Sir, the Sunday Times, which is part and parcel of the Straits Times organisation, is trying to sell the Government line. That is, to be a Federal national is the same as to be a Federal citizen.

Sir, the State Advocate-General; Sir, in fact, did not state categorically in his statement that the terms "national" and "citizen" had the same meaning.

Mr Speaker: Order. For the record, I think the hon. Member should quote the passage which he has been referring to from the Sunday Times.

Mr Bani: I am just about to quote the relevant portions, Sir,I quote the Sunday Times of the 26th November. This is what it says:

'He [that is the State Advocate-General] said that there appeared to be no distinction between the terms "nationality" and "citizenship" for the purposes of the British Nationality Act, 1948. However, it was permissable to use the term "nationality" for the purposes of international law and the term "citizenship" for the purposes of national or municipal law, he added.'

Sir, in the same paper, we have a report on the Government's explanatory statement which subsequently follows - I read from the Straits Times of the same date, Sir:

'An explanatory Government statement today said that in non-legal language, the State Advocate-General's opinion meant that the terms "citizen" and "national" have the same meaning.'

Sir, please note that it was the Government's so-called explanatory statement and not the State Advocate-General's opinion that stated that the two words have the same meaning.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that a great deal of confusion has resulted from the fact that the two words "national" and "citizen" have been used at times to mean the same thing. But, Sir, what is important is not the word that is being used to describe a political status but the significance of the political status itself. Sir, the only significant paragraph in the long statement of the S.A.G. - a statement full of legalistic jargon - is this paragraph. Let me quote again, Sir, the Sunday Times of the 26th. It said:

'The term "citizen" was usually used in reference to a person's domestic or internal rights within a country, and "national" was usually used in reference to a man's international standing and status.' Sir, this is exactly what the Member for Queenstown has said. Let me quote the relevant part of his speech where he was discussing the difference between the terms "citizen" and "national". He said, Sir:

'"Citizenship" and "nationality" are two distinct concepts. "Citizenship" expresses the right of an individual within a State and "nationality" is a right outside the State.'

Sir, what the P.A.P. is trying to confuse the people with is the fact that these two concepts, namely, your right within a - State and your right outside the State, have sometimes been described by the same thing. That is to say, Sir, the word "citizen" has been used sometimes to mean your rights inside the State and sometimes to mean your rights outside the State. Similarly, the word "national" has been used to mean either of these two concepts.

Sir, as far as I can see, in the British commonwealth though there is a different set of citizenship laws for each of, the different Commonwealth countries, there is only one overall common nationality. That is to say, whether you are a citizen of Australia or a citizen of Canada, you are both a British Commonwealth national. The confusing thing is that this concept of an overall Commonwealth nationality for all the citizens of the various Commonwealth countries has been given the legal title of "Commonwealth citizenship", instead of "Commonwealth nationality". What is more confusing, Sir, as the State Advocate-General has correctly pointed out, is that - let me quote him in the same issue of the Sunday Times - he said:

'Some Commonwealth countries use the term "national" to describe their citizens.'

Sir, the word "national" is being used in different countries to mean different thing. It is something, Sir, like the word "dollar". A dollar in Hongkong is worth only about half the Singapore dollar. When someone wants to give us a dollar, one usually means a Singapore dollar. But when these desperate P.A.P. politicians, who are politically bankrupt, offer us a dollar, we must be careful for they are, in fact, trying to pass off Hongkong dollars for Singapore dollars.

An hon. Member: American!

Mr Bani: Not American. Sir, I know all this sounds extremely confusing. In fact, I know that even some lawyers are quite confused over the whole thing. You can just imagine, Sir, our 630,000 poor citizens! They have a right to know exactly what deal they are going to get Sir, this whole confusion, as I understand it, has resulted from the loose usage of the terms "national" and "citizen" to mean either of one of two concepts that I have mentioned. No one is to be blamed for this confusion, Sir, except the lawyers who seem to have a vested interest to make their profession look all very complicated and respectable. Sir, what is contemptible is this deliberate attempt by the P.A.P. to cash in on this confusion in the use of the words to smuggle in a set of political rights that are completely different from those possessed by the citizens of the other eleven States of the Federation.

Sir, I am not a lawyer, and as a layman, I am not interested in all these legalistic and academic quibbles on the usage of mere words. Neither am I nor I am sure, are the people interested in all these meaningless verbal intricacies. What the people are interested in is not whether one is to be called a "national" or a "citizen", but whether one is to be given the same rights and privileges as those enjoyed by the people of the other eleven States in the Federation. Call these political rights by whatever name, Sir, - be it national, citizen, new citizen or what have you - but the important thing is that there must be a common citizenship for all the people of Malaya, including Singapore, on merger. Merger cannot mean anything else. The present arrangement for separate citizenship, Sir, is in direct contradiction to the. concept of merger and, in fact, nullifies it. What the people want after merger is that they will also enjoy the rights and privileges now enjoyed by the people of the Federation, particularly Federal citizenship rights, which are fundamental to all those who regard Malaya as their home. That is what they want and that is what every responsible leader of our people should ask for. It is no use for the P.A.P. Government to tell us that after their phoney merger, both Singapore citizens and the Federal citizens will become Federal nationals. What we are interested in is, what, in fact, are the rights of these Federal nationals; what, in fact, are the rights after merger of the Federal nationals, the Federal citizens, and Singapore citizens? That is the point, Sir. That is the substance of the issue.

We in the Barisan Sosialis are realists and we are interested only in the substance of the issue and not in names. The people of Singapore are politically mature. They can differentiate mere names from the real substance of the issue. The people of Singapore realise that the status of Federal national is useful only when they go abroad. But it is meaningless when they are within the country, for within the country what matters is the citizenship status. It is no use telling the people of Singapore that when they go abroad, they will be regarded in foreign countries as being equal as the people of the Federation. We know that the people of Singapore and the Federation will be possessing the same passport. But what is the use of being equal just Outside one's country and not being equal inside one's country?

Sir, the Member for Queenstown has aptly described this whole arrangement as just a showcase to the outside world - the pretence that the people of Singapore and Malaya are all united and equal.

Sir, the P.A.P. is inventing this new term, "Federal national", to hide the fact that what the people of Singapore will possess after the phoney merger is just a State citizenship and not a Federal citizenship as possessed by the people of the other 11 States. If it is indeed true that we are going to become equal with the Federal citizens, then why do not the P.A.P. just grant us all Federal citizenship rights? Why do not on merger all Singapore citizens be known as Federal citizens? Why must the P.A.P. invent a new term - "Federal national" - which is not found in the present Federal Constitution? Why must the P.A.P. bring in three types of citizenship - 1. Federal National; 2. Federal Citizen; 3. Singapore Citizen? If we are fit to be equal with Federal citizens, then give us Federal citizenship. Why burden us with Federal nationality?

Sir, this double talk of the P.A.P. leadership - I do not know whether to be angry or to laugh at it -

Mr Rajaratnam: Laugh!

Mr Bani: It so happens, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am a much more serious man than the Minister for Culture. To him, perhaps, politics and the business of the country are matters to laugh about.

Mr Rajaratnam: Grinning!

Mr Bani: Sir, I cannot help admiring the agility of the Prime Minister - his remarkable capacity to twist and wriggle in spite of all logic when he speaks. My only regret is that this unusual ability of our Prime Minister is not put to some honest service to our people. My only regret is that it has all been wasted in trying to conceal the truth from the people; the truth that will spell the political doom for these political opportunists who have betrayed the trust of the people.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown posed in this Assembly several questions to the Government on the implications of this Federal citizenship arrangement. Instead of answering these questions, the Minister for Culture starts accusing us of asking questions without providing answers. Sir, what is all this nonsensical talk by the Ministers, particularly the Minister for Culture, who is supposed to be cultured? We have asked the Government certain questions, and it is clearly understood by anyone with even average intelligence that answers are expected from the Government. They have put forward a proposal and the people have a right to know its implications. Surely the Minister is not so dense and dull as not to notice, or is he afraid that the answers, if made truthfully, would lay bare their political sell-out?

Sir, let me answer those questions since the Government Ministers have not dared to do. These are what will happen to the people of Singapore under the phoney merger of the P.A.P. -

Mr Rajaratnam rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Rajaratnam: Point of order. Is it in order for the Member for Thomson to make statements without having read my speech but only the Member for Queenstown's? The answers were provided.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It does amaze me that Ministers have some sort of intelligence that brings them into the Chamber when they are being commented upon by Opposition Members!

Mr Bani: That is precisely the trouble with the P.A.P. Ministers, Sir!

Mr Rajah: They have got intelligence?

Mr Bani: They say one thing and mean an-other. I can assure the Minister for Culture that I have read through his speech which he has very kindly circulated to all Members of the House at the expense of public money. Opposition Members' speeches are not circulated to Government Departments, statutory bodies and all public dignitaries. Those circulated are only Govern ment Ministers' statements. They are not even the Backbenchers'.

Mr Rajaratnam: When you were a Backbencher, your's was.

Mr Bani: As a result of that, I have read through not only the Minister's speech, but also the others. There was an attempt by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance to provide some form of answers to these questions. But, in the first place, they were not adequate answers. In the second place, since the Ministers fought shy of answering these questions, let me provide the answers. They can then either accept or deny them as they think fit.

Sir, I was saying that these are what will happen to the people of Singapore under the phoney merger of the P.A.P.:

1. Singapore citizens will retain their State citizenship - something which they already have. The only new thing they will have is the so-called Federal national status. This Federal nationality will give them nothing new except a Federal passport instead of a British passport.

2. Singapore citizens will be allowed to send only 15 representatives to the Federal Parliament, when they should be entitled to at least 25 Members in the House of Representatives.

3. The P.A.P.'s pseudo merger, if it materialises, will not enable any Singapore citizen to become automatically a Federal citizen.

4. Not even those Singapore citizens born in Singapore will have the automatic right to Federal citizenship.

5. In fact, even those who will be born in Singapore after this phoney merger will not be entitled as of right to become Federal citizens. What they will have will be just Singapore State citizenship like anyone born in Singapore under the present situation.

6. Singapore citizens will not have the right to vote and stand for election when they go to the Federation after this phoney merger. In fact, they will be treated like foreigners there.

7. The only way for Singapore citizens to obtain Federal citizenship after this P.A.P.'s phoney merger is that:

(i) He must go and stay in the Federation for another 10 years.

(ii) He must pass a Malay language test.

(iii) Satisfy the Federation Government that he is of good character. That is, Sir, his political views, must be acceptable to the Federation Government.

In other words, he has to apply just like any foreigner or alien. The fact that he will be a Federal national will be completely irrelevant.

Sir, these are the seven main important political implications of this phoney merger, which everyone in Singapore must know. But, Sir, there are also other important implications:

8. Unlike Federal citizens, Singapore citizens will not be able to apply for jobs direct in the Federal Government service. Their lack of Federal citizenship will be a discriminating factor against them. On the other hand, Federal citizens will have the right, in practice though not in theory, to obtain jobs in Singapore Government service just as they are doing right now.

9. The workers of Singapore will not be able to apply for jobs in the Federation on an equal footing with Federal citizens.

10. The products of Singapore schools and universities will not be treated on the same footing as their Federation counterparts when they apply for jobs in the Federation.

11. Singapore citizens will not be able to move freely in the Federation. They can be easily barred from going across the Causeway.

12. Singapore citizens will not have full freedom of speech and expression in the Federation. Singapore publications will not be allowed to circulate freely in the Federation.

13. Students from Singapore schools and universities will not have the right to travel freely in the Federation, intermingle with Federation students, and participate in students movements in the Federation without discrimination. In fact, the same situation will remain for them as it is now.

14. The workers of Singapore and of the Federation will not be allowed to form Pan-Malayan trade unions so that they can unite and strengthen the organisations in their struggle to improve their livelihood.

15. The people of Singapore and the people of the Federation will not be permitted to form Pan-Malayan political Parties and social organisations in order to bring about unity and common understanding to our peoples and to advance our interests as one united people.

And last, but not the least, Sir:

16. The businessmen of Singapore will not have equal rights and opportunities as Federal businessmen if they choose to do their business in the Federation. Their lack of Federal citizenship will be a discriminating factor against them.

Sir, as the Member for Queenstown has said, let the truth be out. Let us not try to cover up these ugly facts. Let there be no more bluff. Let the people know all there is to know. They have the right to know the truth, the whole truth - nothing less and nothing else.

Sir, I challenge the Straits Times to publish the ugly truths of this phoney merger.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not want any challenges to strangers in this Assembly.

Mr Bani: It is not as -

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is now time for tea.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have not forgotten the time. I was under the impression that the Member for Thomson was winding up.

Mr Bani: I am not winding up. I suggest that you can adjourn now, Sir. Perhaps it is an appropriate moment for tea.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member for Thomson be much longer?

Mr Bani: A little longer.

Mr Speaker: I am glad to hear that. If it is convenient, then we will suspend. I shall take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.