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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Bani: I was saying, Sir, at suspension time, that the English-educated is an important section of our people, and they also have a right to know the truth. The Straits Times is enjoying the unhealthy monopoly of being the only English newspaper in our country and it is its duty and responsibility to let them know the truth.

As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was the Minister for Finance who first put up the bluff that under the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, it is not possible for all Singapore citizens to become automatically Federal citizens on merger. This bluff, Sir, was completely exposed by the Member for Queenstown. In his speech, Sir, the Minister for Finance had at long last admitted that it was possible for all citizens of Singapore to become automatically citizens of the Federation of Malaya, though he said that this was only an academic possibility. Sir, whatever the merits of the Minister for Finance are, I can safely say that intellectual honesty is not one of them, for if he had known that it was constitutionally possible for automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federal citizens on merger then why did he, in the first place, Sir, try to bluff our people in such categorical terms that it was constitutionally impossible?

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have noticed that one by one the excuses put up by the P.A.P. Government to avoid fighting for full equal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens, on the basis that they all become automatic Federal citizens, were completely exposed by the Member for Queenstown. As he has summarised, the P.A.P.'s line of bluff was as follows: firstly, automatic conversion of Singapore citizenship to Federal citizenship was supposed to be constitutionally impossible. Then when we quoted chapter and verse and Article 26 of the Federal Constitution, the P.A.P. changed its line, and said that it was politically unreasonable to demand for full Federal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens. Then later it became a question of having to register for citizenship all over again and to pass a Malay language test. So one by one these bluffs were completely exposed by the Member for Queenstown.

But the P.A.P. Government now puts up yet another bluff which was not heard by the people of Singapore before. And this new bluff, Sir, is put up by none other than the Minister for Finance himself when he said that the real reason why the Federation refuses to accept automatic conversion of all Singapore citizens to Federal citizen on merger is that there are certain Singapore citizens who are Communists and who will become Federal citizens by this automatic conversion. Hence it is to prevent these Communists, who have Singapore citizenship rights, from becoming Federal citizens on merger that the Tunku has refused to give Federal citizenship rights to all the 630,000-odd Singapore citizens.

Sir, we have never heard the Tunku say this. And for all we know, it may yet be another fast one which the Minister for Finance is trying to put over us. But, Sir, if it is really true that this is the real reason why the Tunku does not want all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens on merger, then we actually see no difficulty whatsoever in meeting the Tunku's requirements, namely, that no Singapore citizen who also happens to be a Communist should become a Federal citizen. Sir, as the Minister for Finance himself has said, between God and the Communists, there is the Special Branch.

Mr Rajaratnam: The Barisan!

Mr Bani: Sir, we have also heard the Prime Minister telling us sometime ago that he believed there are only 300 Communists in Singapore. Sir, if these two statements were true, then where is the difficulty? Why cannot the Special Branch tell us who these 300 Communists in Singapore are? What is sc difficult about it? What would give our Government greater pleasure than to deprive these 300 citizens of their citizenship? The way then would be clear for all the rest of the 630,000-odd citizens, provided, of course, the Special Branch - or whatever other Intelligence service the Government has - does not make the same mistake as it made in the case of Tommy Koh.

Sir, on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis, I wish to state here categorically that if this is the real reason why the Tunku refuses to accept all Singapore citizens as Federal citizens on merger - namely, to prevent certain Singapore citizens who happen also to be Communists from becoming Federal citizens - then let the Prime Minister prove these 300 citizens to be Communists and deprive them of their citizenship, so that the remainder of the 630,000 Singapore citizens will be given automatic right to Federal citizenship on merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, we sincerely hope that the Minister for Finance will have no more excuses after this.

Sir, the Member for Anson has said that Singapore citizenship, after this phoney merger, will not be a second-class citizenship. I regret, Sir, that the Member for Anson was being too academic in his approach. It may be true, from the legal standpoint, that there is no such thing as second-class citizenship. I am not a lawyer, Sir, and I look upon citizenship, as I said before, from the viewpoint of a layman. And to the layman, if he finds that his citizenship is of value only within the State of Singapore and becomes valueless the moment he steps out of his own State and into the other States of the nation, then he will realise that there is something lacking in his own citizenship, especially, Sir, when he finds that the citizenship status possessed by people in the other States is recognised throughout the eleven States of the Federation. Sir, he will realise that his own citizenship is definitely inferior. If his citizenship is inferior, therefore, it can be described as second-class. This may not be legally true, but from the common-sense point of view, I do not think the Member for Anson will disagree with us.

Sir, the Member for Anson has brought up a very valuable point which unfortunately the Straits Times did not think fit to give it the prominence it deserves. The point, Sir, is that even under the P.A.P. phoney merger, the 4:1 ratio will still apply to these Singapore Government services which will become part of the pan-Malayan Federal Departments, and that there is, in fact, no difference whatsoever in this respect from a complete merger.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not recollect the Member for Anson saying that under the "phoney" merger, all these things will happen. I do not think he used the word "phoney". I think he used the words "P.A.P. type of merger".

Mr Bani: I agree with you, Sir. I think he said, in fact, the P.A.P. Government type of merger. But in content and substance, Sir, we all know that the P.A.P. type of merger is no merger, and that it is merely a phoney merger. In other words, the 4:1 ratio will apply in a complete merger, as is also in the case of the P.A.P. phoney merger, to those parts of the civil service which will come under Federal control. Thus, here, Sir, another P.A.P. bluff against complete merger was exposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. also tried to frighten us from demanding complete merger by threatening that Singapore's free port status will be destroyed under complete merger. But again we know this to be absolutely not true. Penang today is completely merged with the Federation, and yet she is still maintaining her free port status. All this goes to show the utter insincerity of the P.A.P. It goes to show that the P.A.P. does not want a complete and genuine reunification of the people, and because of this, they will seek every excuse to frighten the people from calling for a complete merger. It is quite clear to everyone, Sir, again for people even with average intelligence, that the people who are in fact anti-merger are the P.A.P. themselves.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Hear, hear!

Mr Bani: Sir, what the P.A.P. really wants is not true merger but a phoney set-up which seeks to place the political destiny of the people of Singapore under the control of the Government in the Federation over which the people of Singapore cannot exert appropriate influence. This aim, Sir, has already been made clear. The P.A.P. simply hopes that this phoney merger set-up will help the P.A.P. to retain its political power. The P.A.P. leaders hope that the Federation Government, after this phoney merger, will put all the P.A.P. political opponents into gaol so that there will be no opposition whatsoever, except the weaklings in the S.P.A., in the next election.

Sir, no people will aspire to or strive for a political change that will bring them no gain or for one which will make their plight worse off. It need not be repeated, Sir, that the people of Singapore have long aspired to be reunited with their brothers across the Causeway. But, Sir, this aspiration, this aim, this goal, has not been sought for nothing. Nor have the people longed for merger as an empty manipulation to keep afloat fast-sinking political bankrupts and turn-coats. Sir, the people seek and hope for a genuine reunification of the two territories so that the united country and the people may have greater freedom and command greater strength to lead better lives. Therefore, Sir, it is essential that the conditions for merger must be negotiated with the mutual welfare and progress of the people of the two territories as the primary objective. There is nothing insurmountable in the way of negotiating a merger wherein the citizens of Singapore will automatically become the citizens of the Federation. We can have nothing less than this. The people of Singapore will never forgive any politician or group of politicians who dare do otherwise. There is nothing to prevent negotiation on the question of automatic Federal citizenship being granted to all Singapore citizens. It is rightly a matter to be negotiated by the two peoples coming together.

Sir, those who assume responsibility on behalf of the people of Singapore have the duty to see that any settlement arrived at will achieve the objectives of mutual welfare, progress, greater freedom and equality for the people. Anything less than these will be a sell-out.

It is clear, Sir, what the real intention of the P.A.P. is. They do not want a complete merger between Singapore and the Federation. Therefore, each time we give some reason to support a complete merger, they start giving another reason to show why we should not have complete merger.

Sir, I am a trade unionist. All these things remind me of what happen during negotiations between employers and workers on matters which will advance the interests of the workers. In such negotiations, Sir, you will find that the workers' representatives will put forth arguments to support the workers' case, and to each such argument the employers will put up another argument to show why the workers' interests should not he advanced. Similarly, Sir, on this merger negotiation we in the Barisan Sosialis have the support of the people. Therefore, we put up arguments that will support the advancement of our people's interests. Whereas the P.A.P., which has now lost the support of the people and whose political future depends now upon the support of the Federation Government, and therefore, to every argument that is put forward for complete merger, they have put up another argument on behalf of the Federation Government. It is quite clear, Sir, whom the Federation Government now represents in this merger negotiation. It is quite evident, Sir, that they are more keen to show why Singa, pore citizens should not have equal status than why Singapore citizens should have equal status. If the P.A.P. is sincere in wanting to advance the interest of the people of Singapore, why must it keep on advancing arguments which will deny Singapore citizens the right to automatic Federal citizenship? In fact, Sir, we have seen our Prime Minister literally putting words into the Tunku's mouth in order to deprive all Singapore citizens of the right to automatic Federal citizenship on merger. He has said that the Tunku would consider him dotty, if we were to put up the argument that all Singapore citizens should be Federal citizens on merger. Surely, Sir, the Tunku can speak for himself. I am quite certain that the Tunku is not so uncouth as to go around calling people "dotty". Even in the letter by the Prime Minister of Singapore to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, which was read out in this Assembly - I believe it was on Friday, Sir - we could see that our Prime Minister was, in fact, supplying the Tunku with arguments why Singapore citizens should not have automatic Federal citizenship right on merger. You will note, Sir, that our Prime Minister again referred to the argument that if Singapore were to merge with the Federation like Penang, then only those born in Singapore would have the right to Federal citizenship. In other words, Sir, our Prime Minister was arguing that if Singapore were to merge with the Federation like Penang, then Singapore should go in not as we are now, but as we were 16 years ago when we were separated and when we did not have State citizenship. Surely, Sir, the people of Singapore can see through this ridiculous line of argument. Our Prime Minister seems to be more anxious to please the Federation Government than to please the people of Singapore. Whose side is our Prime Minister on? On whose behalf is he negotiating? The people of Singapore or the Government of the Federation of Malaya.

Mr David Marshall: On behalf of the P.A.P.

Mr Bani: Just as the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance are anxious to negotiate on behalf of the Government of the Federation of Malaya, so are the Ministers for Labour and Law, Education and the Deputy Prime Minister. When they speak, they seem to be extremely keen to put up only those arguments which would show why Singapore citizens should not have automatic Federal citizenship rights. The Minister for Culture, in his speech to this Assembly, put up many ridiculous arguments. He contended that after the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, since the Federation citizens cannot have Singapore citizenship rights in as much as Singapore citizens cannot have Federal citizenship rights, therefore, Singapore citizens are as unequal as Federation citizens, and therefore, since both are unequals, they are equals. The whole Government benches, I believe, Sir, laughed at this. I suppose they all thought it was a very clever arguments. Sir, this is an absolutely childish and puerile way of arguing -

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has been on the brink up to now. I do not think he can describe anything said by Members of this Assembly as childish and puerile. Will he withdraw that expression?

Mr Bani: I withdraw these words, Sir, As my colleague, the Member for Nee Soon, pointed out the other day, monkeys confined in cages, looking out of their cages through the bars, may imagine that those people outside the bars are prisoners. Sir, what the Minister for Culture contends is something like this. If a family of 12 people decide to -treat one of their members as an outcast and confine him to live only in a dungeon, therefore, since the other 11 members live separately from that one poor chap living in the dungeon, they are as unequal as the poor chap living in the dungeon. Sir, it is not a case that these 11 chaps cannot enter the dungeon, but they simply do not want to, whereas that poor chap is clamouring to get out of his plight. Really, Sir, it is sometimes sickening to watch the P.A.P. leaders sinking to such childish and infantile arguments in their -

Mr Speaker: I know the hon. Member has a prepared script, but I have overruled "childish and puerile", and now he substitutes "childish and infantile", which is just as bad. He should withdraw that expression.

Mr Bani: I thought, Sir, you said with reference to Members of this House. But I just now said "to watch the P.A.P. leaders". "P.A.P. leaders" are not necessarily confined only to this House, but -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member can escape from that "dungeon".

Mr Bani: I shall withdraw those words, Sir. But one wonders how much more these desperate P.A.P. leaders would do to try to postpone their political doom.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret very deeply the speech made by the Member for Geylang Serai. I respect him as the elected Member of the people of Geylang Serai who are predominantly Malays. He is the head of a communal Party, the U.M.N.O. This question of merger is a national issue that seeks to bring unity, harmony and peace to all our peoples irrespective of race, colour and creed. I therefore deeply regret that on this national issue the Member for Geylang Serai should have made an emotional speech the other day. He has accused the Barisan Sosialis of being communal on the basis of groundless accusations. It is not only regrettable but completely despicable that the P.A.P., which professes to be a non-communal Party, also attempts to stir up communal feelings during this debate.

Sir, I shall first deal with these despicable P.A.P. attempts to stir up communal feelings and I shall then later discuss -calmly with the Member for Geylang Serai on what he has said. The P.A.P. has attempted to sour relationship between the Barisan Sosialis and the Federation Government and has attempted to paint our differences with the Federation Government as being based on communalism. It has tried to stir up hostility in the Federation against the Barisan Sosialis by emphasising that we aim to topple the Federation Government on complete merger. They have said it in such a way as to give a communal overtone to the whole matter. I said earlier that if the P.A.P. is sincerely a socialist Party, then these things are precisely what they should do. In fact, as has been pointed out, these were actually the very same objectives of the P.A.P. in those days when they had the support of the people. Why is it that the P.A.P. leaders are now harping on these matters as though they carry with them a communal bias?

Sir, the P.A.P. has challenged us to state whether we support the Federation policies on education and labour under complete merger. This is absolute nonsense. We have already very clearly stated our stand on education and labour. If the Government Ministers had been in this Chamber while the Member for Queenstown was delivering his speech, they would have known our Party stand on these matters.

Sir, just to elucidate them, allow me to quote the policy statement of my Party made on the 28th of August, 1961:

'We fully realise that many of the policies of the present Right-wing Government in the Federation are unacceptable to us. The present Federation Government is in close alliance with foreign capital. It has bound the country to the so-called British/Malaya mutual defence treaty and turned our motherland into a military base for British armed forces. Its foreign policy has alienated our country from the main stream of Afro-Asia, particularly Indonesia, Ghana and India. Its internal policies are repressive, particularly to trade unions and intellectuals. Freedom of expression, organisation and other civil liberties are curbed and its educational policy is misguided. Nevertheless, we are willing to accept these disabilities and join up with the socialist forces in the Federation to build a great alliance with peasants, workers and intellectuals to defeat by constitutional means the reactionary forces at the general elections. Our socialist comrades in the Federation have for long been waging a determined struggle against the reactionary forces of the Federation Government. We will strength this struggle by joining hands with the Federation.'

You will note, Sir, that we have stated in categorical terms that as a Party which firmly believes in socialism, we cannot agree with the present Federation Government's -policies on labour, education and other matters. This is only to be expected in view of the fact that the present Federation Government is not a socialist Government. What we seek to do is that after complete merger, we will utilise all the normal constitutional and democratic methods to convince the people of Malaya that our policies are better and hope thereby to effect a change in these policies. That would appear, Sir, to be the normal democratic way of doing things. But apparently it is something very unsatisfactory to the P.A.P. which professes to be a socialist Party.

Sir, we notice that the P.A.P., on the one hand, are actually playing to communal feelings in Singapore by harping all the time on the fact that they seek to safeguard Chinese education in Singapore; yet on the other hand, they accuse us of being communal when we are prepared to let the Federation Government have complete control of our educational policy in a complete merger.

Publicly, the P.A.P. professes to be a non-communal Party. But we have noticed that in recent months it has been playing a very dangerous communal line in local politics. We have known that the P.A.P. leaders in private have been using communal arguments in order to split the Malay members and the Chinese members of the socialist movement in Malaya. We know that during the period of the split within the rank and file of the P.A.P., the Minister for Culture went to the Federation to seek the support of the socialists in the Socialist Front of the Federation of Malaya. We know that in those instances, the Minister for Culture tried to play a communal line when he met members of the socialist movement in the Federation -

Mr Rajaratnam rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of order. Is it in order for a Member to perpetuate fabrications without producing the facts?

Mr Bani: I was never in the Straits Tunes.

Mr Speaker: If the Member for Thomson is fabricating, the remedy, of course, is clear. If he is proved to have fabricated, there is always the Committee of Privileges. It is not a point of order.

Mr Bani: I can assure the Minister for Culture, Sir, that I am not in the habit of fabricating things. I have never had the -

Mr Speaker: I have ruled.

Mr Bani: I have never been employed in the Straits Times, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I have ruled.

Mr Bani: As I said, we know of instances when he met socialists in the Socialist Front in the Federation, he pursued the communal line. To one Malay socialist that I know of, he told him that Mr Lim Ching Siong has now become anti-nationalist and anti-Malay.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder how all this is relevant to the merger motion.

Mr Bani: Sir, you will have noticed during the debate on this amendment that various Government Ministers have accused the Barisan Sosialis of being communal and all that I seek to do is to explain our stand and to show, in fact, whether we, as socialists, or the P.A.P Government, which profess to be socialist, are communal.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether I am wrong, but I think the allegation that the Barisan Sosialis were communal was made in relation to the merger motion. There is no debate as to whether or not, in fact, in other instances the Barisan Sosialis are communal or the P.A.P. are communal. I think the hon. Member is bringing in some other aspect of this being communal or non-communal.

Mr Bani: Sir, I can assure you that what I am saying is, in fact, related to the merger issue that we are debating now.

As I was saying, Sir, he told a Malay socialist - a friend of mine - that Mr Lim Ching Siong has now become anti-nationalist and anti-Malay and he said this in a very indirect way. The Minister for Culture alleged that Mr Alex Josey who I believe lives with him in the same house -

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow tall these personal names to be brought into this debate. I do not know how that is relevant to this merger issue. If the hon. Member wishes to make a direct allegation, he must be able to substantiate it, or tell me exactly how it is relevant to this merger motion. I cannot allow all these personalities.

Mr Bani: I did say, Sir, that I intend to show the relevance of what I am saying to the motion that we are debating today. Sir, we are debating the issue of merger and it is something that affects all our people. It so happens that we, have two large sections of our population - one Chinese and the other Malays. I have noticed, Sir, the Government speakers all through this debate have directly and indirectly implied that we are opposing merger on a communal basis and all that I seek to do, Sir, is to show that this is not the case.

Sir, it is needless to say that the communal line of the Minister for Culture failed completely to win over the support of the Malay socialists in the Federation. .We know that our Malay socialist cornrades in the Federation are able to see through the P.A.P.'s mischievous and bankrupt propaganda line.

Sir, we heard the Minister for Culture saying the other day in this Assembly That our demand for Federal automatic citizenship for all Singapore citizens will strengthen the P.M.I.P. in the Federation. Sir, what absolute rubbish is this. Everyone knows that the P.M.I.P. is on the decline. Everyone knows that the Malay rakyat and workers are becoming more politically awakened nowadays and are beginning to see through the emptiness and futility of communal propaganda. Like their Malay brethren in Indonesia, the Malays in Malaya are beginning to realise that the answer to their economic problems lies in socialism. Why is the P.A.P., which is supposed to be a socialist Party, completely ignoring the fact that the Party Ra'ayat in the Federation is gaining strength from day to day? Why has the P.A.P. not mentioned in this House the fact that Inche Boestamam, the leader of the Party Ra'ayat, has declared in the Federal Parliament debate on merger that Singapore should only be taken in in a complete merger with all Singapore citizens becoming Federal citizens? Is the Minister for Culture going to tell us that Inche Boestamam, the Chairman of the Party Ra'ayat, by saying this was, in fact, trying to strengthen the P.M.I.P. which is supposed to be a communal Party?

Sir, I need not have to tell the people that the Minister for Culture's arguments are not only ridiculously hollow but that they are becoming quite dangerous. Sir, it is regrettable that in their desperation, the P.A.P. leaders are playing a dangerous communal line. We have noticed that even some months ago before the split had taken place the P.A.P. was shouting dangerous slogans like "Israel and Arab world", "Chinese chauvinism", etc. Yet in the early days of the P.A.P., we heard the P.A.P. leaders constantly boasting that the Chinese in Singapore were not chauvinistic but socialistic.

We clearly remember, Sir, our Prime Minister in 1957 boasting that the election of Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid on the P.A.P. ticket in the Kallang by-election, which was predominantly a Chinese constituency, was an outstanding demonstration of the non-communal attitude of the Chinese in Singapore. Yet today, Sir, the P.A.P. is playing a double-edged communal line. To the Chinese, the P.A.P. tries to appeal to chauvinistic feelings by harping on autonomy on education. Even on the debate, Sir, on the dispute in the Chinese schools the other day, the Prime Minister deliberately spoke in Mandarin when we all know he can express himself better in English and yet -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the point was raised by the Member for Have-lock. He objected to the Prime Minister commenting that the Member for Havelock was speaking in Mandarin and I ruled the Prime Minister out of order. Now I find the Member for Thomson is objecting to the Prime Minister speaking in Mandarin. Let us not say 'Yes' and 'No', 'Yes' and 'No'. That seems to be what the debate is coming to. Shall we carry on with the merger debate?

Mr Bani: Sir, the P.A.P. has also been playing on the fears of the non-Malays in the civil service by constantly harping on the question of the 4: 1 preferential treatment for Malays in the Federal civil service. This, Sir, is a dangerous piece of anti-Malay propaganda by the P.A.P. Yet, on the other hand, to the Malays, the P.A.P. is trying to paint the Barisan Sosialis as being pro-Chinese by saying that the Barisan Sosialis does not agree with the Federation Government's policy on education. But any intelligent person knows that it is because the P.A.P. also does not agree with the Federation Government's education policy that it is trying to have a different education policy in Singapore. The only difference is that the P.A.P. has not got the guts to admit this for fear that it will lose the favour of the Federation Government whose help it needs very badly.

Sir, the P.A.P. Government, having lost the support of the people, has forgotten all its socialist principles. It is playing on very dangerous communal propaganda, stirring up one community against another. Sir, I am not a Chinese. My ancestors came from India but I was born in the Federation and so were my parents. I look towards Malaya as the country of my birth, as the object of my loyalty. That is my only country. I was brought up and educated in this country to which I owe my complete loyalty. Sir, I am a socialist and, therefore, I cannot be a communalist. For anyone, Sir, to accuse a socialist of being communalistic is like anyone trying to accuse a Christian of not believing in Jesus Christ.

Mr Speaker, Sir, socialism and communalism are something like black and white. We cannot breed one with the other. If you are a socialist, you cannot be communalistic at the same time. It therefore grieves me, Sir, to hear the Member for Geylang alleging that we in the Barisan Sosialis are communalistic. Sir, I would be grateful if the hon. Member could point out the parts of the speech made by my colleague, the Member for Queenstown, which were communalistic. In fact, the Member for Queenstown became very emotional when he came to that part of his speech which appealed for communal unity and harmony. He also sought in his conclusion to show that there is no antagonism between the basic interest of the various races living in Malaya. He illustrated this by describing how the workers of the various races in Singapore united themselves to fight and struggle for better living conditions. I believe he quoted the outstanding example of the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation, how workers of various races have complete unity and identity of aims and interests. Sir, how can one who appeals for communal unity and harmony be accused of being communal?

Sir, the Member for Queenstown, as you know, is a medical man and he has been trained to regard all human beings as basically the same, that under the superficial difference of colour of the skin, human beings are basically composed of the same anatomical and physiological elements. How can anyone possibly accuse the Member for Queenstown of all persons of being communalistic?

Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai quoted our reference to apartheid as going to show that we have adopted a communal attitude. Sir, we have often heard the Federation Government saying that one of the reasons why they did not want Singapore to merge with the Federation is that there are too many Chinese in Singapore. We all know the reason why the Federation Government is prepared to accept Singapore only if the Borneo territories come in at the same time. Sir, it is because the Government of the Federation of Malaya hopes that the non-Chinese in Borneo will thereby help to balance the Chinese in Singapore. Is this not a communal approach to the problem of reunification? Does not the Member for Geylang Serai agree that this is, in fact, communalism? Sir, we say that if this is the reason - namely, that the Federation Government is afraid of the numerical strength of the Chinese in Singapore on merger, and because of this it hopes to isolate the people of Singapore by giving it separate citizenship - then, Sir, this proposed constitutional set-up would obviously smack heavily of apartheid, and we appeal to the Tunku, above all others, to refrain from imposing such a set-up on the people of Singapore. Sir, how can we, by being so, be accused of being communalistic? It is because we do not want communalism that we oppose the set-up that smacks heavily of communal isolation.

I really cannot understand, Sir, why the Member for Geylang Serai concluded that we are communalistic in our approach. Sir, with the greatest, respect to the Member for Geylang Serai, I believe he has completely misunderstood what my colleague the Member for Queenstown has said. Sir, the other day the Member for Geylang Serai admitted that he knows nothing of socialism. I think, Sir, it is because he knows nothing of socialism that he begins to suspect us in the Barisan Sosialis of being communalistic. I have said that socialism and communalism are completely antagonistic ideologies. If the Member for Geylang Serai understands something of socialism, Sir, I do not think he will ever accuse us socialists of being communalistic. Sir, socialism is an ideology that is sweeping across the world, and I am sure that the next generation will be able to fulfil our hope that the whole human race on earth will be living happily together in a socialist world. I would appeal to the hon. Member for Geylang Serai, for his own elucidation, to try and understand what socialism is, so that at least if he wishes to criticise the socialists, he should do it on the basis of what he knows about socialism and not on the basis of what he does not know about socialism.

Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to discuss briefly the basis for unity among all our races in Malaya. I think, Sir, you will agree that this is perhaps the most appropriate moment in our history, because we are today faced with the prospect of a plan for reunification, a plan to unite the people of Malaya, which unfortunately, Sir, in my view, is not going to bring about unity.

Sir, it seems to me that when anyone talks about communal problems, they commonly refer to the Chinese and the Malays. I think this is because the Malays and the Chinese are numerically the same. Sir, I am an Indian in origin and I cannot, therefore, be biased towards the Malays or the Chinese. I am, as it were, neutral in the matter. As a socialist. I view this whole question of communal unity from a socialist standpoint and not a communal standpoint. As a socialist, Sir, I cannot see any antagonism between any race in our country.

Sir, the majority of the Malays, the Chinese, and the Indians, are poor. The majority of these three communities live from day to day, struggling for their livelihood. As a trade unionist who all the time works with them, I have seen workers of all races sharing the same difficulties, the same problems and the same hope for a better standard of living. Sir, it is the hope of the majority of all our communities that there should be a change in the social and economic set-up in our society so that it will bring about better living conditions to the poor people of all our communities. Poverty -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed) rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: Yes. (In Malay): I would like to know whether the Member for Thomson is giving a political discourse or is he talking about merger?

Mr Speaker: I am gradually inclining to that point of view. It seems to me that the Member for Thomson is going further and further away from the amendment before the House. I did stop another Member - I forget who it was - who began a discourse on socialism, and I said that that was taking him too far away from the amendment. May I ask the Member for Thomson not to go too tar away from the amendment?

Mr Bani: Sir, I do not intend to go too far and I wish to assure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister that it is not my intention to give a discourse on socialism. I seek to explain the stand of the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis, and the Barisan Sosialis as such, on this issue so that it is understood clearly once and for all.

Sir, the point that I wanted to make just now is this. Just as there are poor Malays, there are also poor Chinese and poor Indians. Just as there are Malay peasants struggling from hand to mouth, there are poor Chinese who live in wretched slums in the Chinatown of Singapore.

Sir, the cry for better living conditions for better economic standards, is a cry common to the poor of all races in our country. I believe we must unite the poor of all races to bring about a better form of society. If the poor of each of these communities were to struggle separately for a better living, they would not achieve- as much as they would if they struggled as a united body. And I see, Sir, in this common struggle by the majority of all communities for better standards of living, a real basis for unity between the peoples of all races. Sir, I can assure the Member for Geylang Serai that when the Malay peasants struggle against exploitation by members of any community, they will find in the workers of Singapore, irrespective of their colour, race, or creed, friends that are second to none. Amongst the workers and the peasants, there can be no basis for communalism.

Sir, the Member for the Southern Islands has tried to say that the Chinese in Singapore should be grateful for what they are having now. Sir, I think this is a very regrettable statement to make. No one should consider himself grateful for what he has. What we are having now is merely the result of objective political, social, economic, and historical factors. If the Chinese or the Indians, and for that matter any community, have political rights in Singapore, it is because the historical, social, political and economic conditions necessitate this right. No political right should be considered a result of charity of any particular community, just as the Malays from Indonesia have the right t participate in the political life of the country which they have come to adopt as their own. People who have come from other countries also have the tight to political participation in this country.

Sir, the peace, harmony and unity that we have today among the various communities in Malaya is something which all the people should be grateful for, not just the Chinese, the Indians, or the Malays. Racial harmony and unity is something that will bring benefit not only to one particular community but to all the communities. Sir, we the Barisan Sosialis are deeply concerned with the economic difficulties of our Malay brothers and sisters. This is not because the Malays are inherently backward, as the British wanted us to believe.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder if the hon. Member can relate that to the merger motion.

Mr Bani: I am coming to the 4:1 ratio, Sir.

Mr Speaker: In that case, I think the hon. Member has made his point. He has been labouring on this point, and it is just the type of labouring that I have tried to ask Members to avoid, by making my announcement this morning.

Mr Bani: I abide by what you say, Sir.

We in the Barisan Sosialis agree that special attention must be paid to improving the living conditions and economic welfare of the Malay community in this country. Unlike the P.A.P., Sir, we do not grudge special preferential treatment to our Malay brothers and sisters in Singapore on complete merger. Unlike the P.A.P., Sir, we do not try to frighten the people of Singapore by asking for complete merger, by harping on the 4:1 ratio, or the preferential treatment for Malays in the Federation. We fully agree with the intention of the Federation Government in respect of its desire to raise the standard of living of the Malay rakyat and the Malay workers of our country, who have suffered enough at the hands of maladministration under the colonial government.

Sir, I wish to assure the representatives of the U.M.N.O in this Assembly that if they truly want to struggle for better standards of living and better economic conditions for the Malays, they will find in the socialist movement a friend that is second to none. I wish to point out, Sir, that they can take that as a categorical assurance on behalf of all socialists in Malaya. I wish to point out to the Member for Geylang Serai and the Member for the Southern Islands that it was the socialist movement in Singapore which persuaded the Chinese and the Indian and the other non-Malay communities to adopt a non-communal line and to accept the Malay language as our national language.

Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai, in concluding his speech, used words like "long axes" and "long parangs". Sir, I am sure -

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai) rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Dato Abdul Hamid: Point of clarification.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Point of clarification. Dato Abdul Hamid.

Dato Abdul Hamid: I used the words "long axes" and "parang" metaphorically. But if the Member for Thomson would like further clarification of the word "parang", I would be only too glad to clarify.

Mr Bani: I am grateful for his clarification, Sir. But to many people who are not as conversant in the Malay language as the Member for Geylang Serai, the words "parang" and "axes" mean something much more than metaphorical. Perhaps, Sir, it is just unfortunate. I quite understand, Sir, that perhaps the Member for Geylang Serai was carried away by his emotion. But I wish to assure him, and I am sure he will agree with me in this, that an emotional display will do no one any good.

Sir, I wish to say just this one bit to Members of U.M.N.O. We will never resort to the use of violence to solve the problems of our people. We shall only use reasoning, understanding, tolerance, peaceful and constitutional means to achieve our objectives. This is because we have full confidence in these methods.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one would have expected from the P.A.P. Ministers some new points in their arguments as to why merger with Singapore entering as the twelfth State is unacceptable to them. They have opposed our amendment, but kept signally silent as to the reasons for their opposition. Instead, they have replayed the same old P.A.P. propaganda tune. Thus, the Minister for Culture, in his rambling address, has confined himself only to a rehashing of the usual P.A.P. trash, and this too, Sir, far less convincingly than in the past. He has tried to show in a very roundabout and tedious way that the Barisan Sosialis is not sincere in its call for merger as the twelfth State of the Federation of Malaya, and that we are in fact, anti-merger. I fail completely to understand how he has arrived at this conclusion. Even the statements he has quoted do not lend support to his contention. I will deal with the statements a little later. But I am sure many of us here are just as bewildered at the word "logic". Probably, Sir, his consultation in occult sciences and astrology must have aided him m no small way to arrive at what he wants us to believe in. Sir, when desperate politicians reach this stage, they are well past the border line between sanity and insanity. He has stated, Sir, that the key to the understanding of the stand taken by the Barisan Sosialis lies in the fact that we broke away from the P.A.P., not over the question of merger but because we wanted to push forward the constitutional anti-colonial struggle; because we wanted to abolish the Internal Security Council and wrest from our colonial masters the right of self-determination. This, Sir, is a correct observation. The crisis in the P.A.P. was not over merger, but over the departure of the P.A.P. leadership from the proclaimed socialist aims and objectives of the Party. The P.A.P. leadership was not willing to strive for more freedom. In political jargon, Sir, the P.A.P. leadership moved further and further to the Right, and thus further and further away from its socialist aims and promises before it came into office. This soon became indistinguishable from the actions of a Right-wing Government. Permit, Sir, to quote the Tunku - a very shrewd man according to our Prime Minister - to illustrate my point. On the 16th October in the Federal Parliament, on the merger debate, he was reported thus in the Straits Times of 17th October:

'Singapore, after the elections of 1959 tried to set up what we might call an extreme Socialist Government under the P.A.P.

When they assumed office they tried to put to trial Socialist ideas and at the same time attempted to secure an understanding with the Federation Government.'

A few paragraphs later, Sir:

'They found it difficult to run the island without the cooperation of men in commerce and industry, and also without being on the best of terms with the Federation Government.

The responsible leaders then realised that they owed a duty to the people to serve their interests rather than themselves, so the seeds of difference between the non-Communist and pro-Communist elements in the P.A.P. were sown which today have broken into a complete break.

Therefore, the Prime Minister of Singapore felt rather concerned and approached me with some of his problems and difficulties. We made a careful study of the situation and came to the conclusion that the only salvation for Singapore would be in some form of closer economic and constitutional association with the Federation.'

Sir, in other words, the Tunku states that the leadership of the P.A.P., since assuming office in May 1959, have forsaken their socialist policies. They have, in the eyes of the Tunku, who prides himself on being a Right-wing leader, changed from "an extreme Socialist Government" to "responsible leaders.". We all know what the Tunku means when he says "responsible leaders". The hon. the Member for Cairnhill was also once referred to as a responsible leader.

Sir, the Minister for Culture quoted some of our Party statements and tried to draw ridiculous inferences from the stand our Party has taken on the constitutional future of Singapore. He tried to ridicule our Party stand by saying that we, after advancing two alternatives, namely, complete merger and confederation, concluded that Singapore should therefore have only internal self-government. Sir, allow me to quote in full once again the statements of my Party on the constitutional future of Singapore, so that there will be no distortion of our stand. They are only brief quotations, Sir. The Minister for Culture, I believe, also used the same documents to quote. Sir this is the Declaration of Meetings of the Conveners of the Barisan Sosialis. I quote item 5:

'Our stand on the constitutional future.

The Barisan Sosialis stand for a united Malayan State comprising the territories now known as Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Unification of the Federation and Singapore is inevitable and we are glad that there is some universal recognition of this fact.

At the same time, we note that thoughts on a united Malayan State are being tied up with the concept of Malaysia, i.e. including the Borneo territories. The way ahead therefore for a real reunification of our people and our country is in one of two directions: (a) An immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining Federation as a constituent State like Penang or Malacca. (b) As an autonomous unit within a confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible.

We recognise the serious disabilities, that the socialist movement will have to put up with by an immediate and full merger. Our socialist comrades in the Federation have been struggling to remove the various oppressive laws and put an end to the various oppressive measures directed against us. We shall join them and intensify the struggle against these laws and measures. In the meantime, we are prepared to accept as a stage to eventual merger a constitutional arrangement for a confederation within which Singapore will be an antonomous unit with full autonomy in internal matters, including internal security, and conceding by treaty the fields of external affairs and defence to the Federation Government. Such an arrangement will not only mean quite substantial advances for the people of Singapore hut it will also bring an end to colonial rule in Singapore. Whatever the direction-' This is an important paragraph, Sir, from which the Minister for Culture used to draw wrong inferences.

'Whatever the direction we choose to take, it is imperative that the anti-colonial struggle must be intensified. We must abolish the Internal Security Council and wrest the right of self-determination from the colonial power by 1963.'

And, Sir, in the statement issued by the Barisan Sosialis on the constitutional advance and the reunification of the two territories on the 27th October, 1961, we said this:

'We wish to emphasise once again that merger must remain our important objective. If merger is possible forthwith, then we are prepared to convince the people of Singapore to accept this opportunity to achieve national unity. In view of the fact that the Tunku has stated categorically that the merger we ask for cannot be attained in the immediate future, we must consider alternatives of constitutional advance. As a step forward to eventual merger, we will agree to some form of relationship with the Federation of Malaya based on full autonomy for Singapore, including internal security.'

This is in the absence of full and complete merger. Further:

'The constitutional struggle of our people must, however, not remain stagnant whilst we wait for some form of satisfactory relationship with the Federation. While our people settle their problems to unite themselves, we must not forget, that the main factor that divides our territories and our peoples is the existence of the colonial power. The imperialist policy of divide and rule needs no explanation. The fight against colonialism in whatever form is not only antagonistic to the unity of our peoples, but is an essential complement. While we forge ahead the tempo of uniting our peoples, it is important that we proceed all out to eradicate colonialism in Singapore. Therefore, if no satisfactory relationship can be established with the Federation of Malaya in the immediate future, we must strive for full and genuine self-government in 1963.'

Sir, I had to read this throughout because I wanted to make sure that there is no distortion of our stand at least in the future. Sir, you will have noticed from these quotations that we believe it is only when either merger or confederation is impossible that we will persist in fighting for more democratic rights and political freedom for our people, and that the minimum demand we should put up in the next constitutional talks in London in 1963 is complete self-government for the people of Singapore. It is clear from our statements that if at any time complete merger or confederation is possible, then we will gladly grab this opportunity to have closer relationship with the Federation based on equality and democracy. But we cannot agree if the proposition put forward is like the P.A.P.'s phoney merger. We cannot agree with the P.A.P. that in the absence of any form of satisfactory unification with the Federation, Singapore should remain politically stagnant. We have stated clearly that the struggle for more democratic rights and political freedom for the people of Singapore does not in any way contradict our struggle for genuine unification between Singapore and the Federation. We have stated that since it was the colonial power which divided our people and our country, any struggle that will reduce colonial influence in our country will logically reduce the main factor that divides our people and our country. That seems to be the logical and sensible way for anyone who sincerely wants a genuine unification of our people. We cannot agree with P.A.P. that the continuance of colonialism in Singapore will in any way contribute to the unity of our people.

The Minister for Culture speaks of complete self-government in Singapore as though it is something fearful and frightening, as though it is something that would divide Singapore further away from the Federation. Sir, let me suggest to the Minister for Culture that he should read what his master, the Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said on internal self-government in Singapore in 1955. I have only a brief quotation to make from Hansard, Vol. 1, col. 21, of 26th April, 1955.

'We believe, Sir, that this country is fit now for full self-government-'.

Sir, that was in l955 - six years ago. And six years ago, our Prime Minister believed that Singapore then should have full self-government straightaway. But now six years later, his colleague, the Minister for Culture, is telling us that we in Singapore should not have full self-government because that will divide Singapore further away from the Federation. What utter rubbish! Who is doing the double talk? who is doing the double thinking? Who is saying one thing at one time and another thing at another time?

The Prime Minister later, on 4th April, 1956, said, in Hansard, Vol. 1, col. 1794 words which are now being contradicted by the Minister for Culture. I shall quote these words, Sir, but I want to say first that when the Prime Minister was speaking then, he was speaking on a motion moved by the then Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, to instruct the All-Party Delegation to the constitutional talks in London "to seek forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce."

In other words, Sir, this motion called on the delegation to seek an independent State of Singapore having control over all its internal affairs, including internal security, but with external defence in the control of the U.K. Government who shall also give guidance in foreign relations. Our Prime Minister said this in col. 1794:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that my Freedom is a matter for argument and that I must justify why I must be free.'

These are admirable words, Sir, but our Prime Minister continued further. We quote him in the fourth paragraph of col. 1794:

'Freedom is the birthright of all peoples everywhere in this world. Because my forefathers migrated for purely selfish economic reasons to what they call the South Seas, a whole generation of some two million Chinese are today left in Malaya with Malaya as their only home and, necessarily thereby, the sole object of their loyalty.'

Yet today, Sir, our Prime Minister wants us to think that getting some form of political integration with the Federation at all costs, even at the cost of selling away our equal citizenship status, is something justifiable. He refuses to consider any form of constitutional advancement whatsoever out of the context of merger. Our Prime Minister begins all of sudden to think that any constitutional advance for Singapore towards reducing colonial influence in Singapore will lead to a further division of Singapore from the Federation. Why this sudden change of attitude? Or was he advocating this attitude in 1956 merely because he then had the support of the people but now, having lost the support of the people, he has abandoned it because he knows that without the Federation Government support, he will not have a hope of political survival?

Incidentally, Sir, I must congratulate the Minister for Finance on his observation that the Barisan Sosialis is roughly in a similar position as the P.A.P. was in .1959. Sir, why does the Minister not draw the obvious conclusion that the P.A.P. of 1961 is different from the P.A.P. of 1959? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen its bad effects even though the power is not absolute. We have seen, in the history of the socialist movement, renegades like the MacDonalds and the Stracheys who fall by the wayside. What the socialist movement discards, the P.A.P. embraces with glee.

Sir, may God spare us the fate of the angry young men of the '50s who, in a short space of 2� years in office, have not only lost their youth but their anger. The Tunku has, in addition, shown one point and that is that it was, only after - I repeat, Sir, only after - our Prime Minister had run into difficulties within his own Party, because of his refusal to rectify his mistakes, that is after Hong Lim, and the demand by five other trade unionists and myself, that he prostrated himself before the Tunku, -begged the Tunku's help and cooked up this present deal which he has the temerity to call merger. Again, at the time of the Hong Lim by-election when I, in common with five other trade unionists, made the call to the P.A.P. leadership to rectify its ways, to release the political detainees and strive for the abolition of the Internal Security Council by 1963, to proceed with the unification of the trade union movement, and to restore the citizenship rights deprived from the anti-colonial fighters. Merger, Sir, was not then an immediate issue. We were not anti merger. Merger was not the issue which broke the back of the P.A.P.

Sir, we all had, and still do, subscribed to the view of independence through merger. But we are not slick lawyers nor are we confidence tricksters. We accept the words "merger" and "independence" at their face value. We did fail, Sir, to foresee that men driven mad by power and desperation could even attempt to tear meanings out of words. Sir, we are wiser today.

Sir, merger was later on slipped in by the P.A.P. leadership to cover up their departure from the socialist aims of the P.A.P. and to hide the betrayal of the trust the people of Singapore had bestowed upon them in 1959. The P.A.P. leaders sought to depict by this maneuver those who had demanded for internal self-government by 1963 as being anti merger. To us, Sir, the anti-colonial struggle is a complementary phase in the struggle for national unity and reunification. The separation of our countries, as the Minister for Labour has said, is due to colonial machinations. We cannot thus accept the perpetuation of colonialism in Singapore as conducive to the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.

Sir, we are serious students of politics. When we know the root cause of our troubles, we shall seek its removal. We do not go in for symptomatic treatment. There is no conflict in our call for the intensification of the anti-colonial struggle and our stand on merger. Our call for the intensification of the anti-colonial struggle and the abolition of the Internal Security Council can in no way imply that we are anti merger. It is utterly dishonest and mischievous to equate this call for greater freedom as indicating that we are afraid of merger.

Sir, the Minister for Culture quoted the letter written by Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, which was published on 24th June, 1961, in the Straits Times. This did not in any way show that we are anti merger. But he used this to try and draw inferences that the meaning contained therein amounted to our being anti merger. Sir, I do not have a copy of the letter. I am quoting from the speech made by the Minister for Culture which has the quotation of the relevant part of the letter he quoted. Since this has been admitted, I suppose it will be in order for me to use this. This is the part that he quoted:

'Merger we have hitherto come to understand was a thing of the distant future. However, recent statements by leaders of the Federation hold out an earlier promise of the union of the two territories. Encouraging as it is, the question now arises, on what terms will this be effected?'

Sir, I will repeat the last sentence:

'Encouraging as it is, the question now arises, on what terms will this be effected?

But I think the Government in the Federation and the Left-wing Government in Singapore apply certain conflicting policies. This is recognised in the statement by Dr Toh, the P.A.P. Chairman, that whatever the constitutional position of the future we must have control over labour and education. This is exactly our concern. We have stated that any constitutional arrangement must not mean a setback for the people in terms of freedom and democracy.'

This is the quotation, Sir. How can any sane person say that this quotation shows that the Barisan -Sosialis is not sincere in wanting merger for Singapore as the twelfth State? Let me repeat, Sir: all that Mr Lim Chin Siong said was, "Encouraging as it is, the question now arises, on what terms will this be effected" Mr Speaker, Sir, the salient facts therefore, are:

1. We supported the idea of merger.

2. We were ignorant of the details of proposed merger, like all the people of Singapore, and

3. We stated the principles on which any constitutional arrangement should be based.

Thus, Sir, on 28th August in our policy statement and again in our Declaration of the Meeting of Convenors of the Barisan Sosialis - both of which I have read out - the very same declaration which the Minister for Culture has so ably read out to this House, we have maintained the same consistent stand. We confine ourselves to an analysis of the political situation to a statement of principles and to pointing out in bold relief the directions heading for our constitutional advance. We call, as our first priority, for the complete merger of Singapore as the twelfth State despite the fact that the details of the so-called negotiations were not made available to us and in the face of the Tunku's apparent somersault from an attitude of riot wanting merger to his publicly stated desire for merger.

Sir, the Minister for Culture wanted to know when it was that we decided to call the P.A.P. deal a sell-out and a phoney merger. Let me state again, Sir: we were not against merger at that time; we are not against merger today, and we have never been against merger. I challenge the P.A.P. Government to quote from tiny of our statements that we are against merger. Sir, to call the P.A.P. deal a sellout and a phoney merger does not in any way show or imply that we are against merger. The P.A.P. deal is not merger, and we have said so. It is not only a perversion of the meaning of merger, but it can also be better described as tipu orang merger - in the words, I believe, of the Member for Anson.

Sir, when did we call the P.A.P. deal a sell-out? When did we describe the P. A. P, citizenship arrangement agreed to by the P.A.P. Government as making Singapore citizens second-class citizens in the new Federation of Malaya? Sir, we called the P.A.P. deal a sell-out as soon as sufficient details were revealed in this act of striptease politics. Now, Sir, we have exposed the deal naked for all to see. Who would not be aggrieved when he realises that the P.A.P. is parading a prostitute as a virgin?

Sir, we have been described as the "angry young men." We are proud to be the angry young men of this generation. We are young in age. Sir, but not in experience. We are glad that we are not old and senile as the P.A.P. leadership. We are angry Sir, and justly so. What man in his right senses would not be angry today at the way things are done and especially, Sir, at the treachery of the P.A.P. Government?

Mr Speaker: I did remind hon. Members of the announcement I made this morning. The hon. Member has been speaking for about 3� hours, and I did invite hon. Members to subject themselves to self-discipline to see that their speeches are not unnecessarily lengthy and to avoid unnecessary repetitions. I can only be generous and say that possibly the Member for Thomson received this announcement too late for him to revise his speech.

7.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in debating the issue arising from the motion introduced by the Minister for Labour to which an amendment has been moved by the Member for Queenstown, a full sense of consciousness and realisation should influence our minds and thinking in order that we may not deviate from our avowed objective and contradict our national interests with catastrophic consequences which the people of the State do not want.

It is crystal clear to every nationalist fighter that the issue we are debating is a national issue which has become the avowed objective of all true Malayan nationalists who have come to regard Malaya as their sole homeland and the object of their undivided loyalty. We will continue to have hopes in and we appeal to all Malay nationalists to observe this principle with a view to the establishment of a peaceful, prosperous, happy and united Malayan nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, since this a national issue, it is imperative that we sink party and personal squabbles so that we may be able to resolve in its proper perspective all the problems confronting us for the well-being of the State and its entire people.

However, Mr Speaker, I am left with no alternative but to express my regrets in this Assembly when I see the domineering behaviour of the Member for Queenstown and his comrades when they put forward their arguments in support of the amendment.

7.31 p.m.

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

Inche Yaacob Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): He and his comrades exhibited the typical arrogance of thumping their chests and behaving like the proverbial Malay saying of a teenager in possession of a brand new dagger. He goes around smearing and challenging everyone, and saying to himself, "Now, look at me. My disciples are as countless as the ants. So be careful of my magic weapon." Mr Deputy Speaker, it is only proper, therefore, that the people whom he has derided and challenged should take up that challenge and say "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth."

Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion in the name of the Minister for Labour cannot but be regarded as a sincere call to all genuine Malayan nationalists, faced with this national issue, to renew their determination and faith in the struggle. Our struggle is a continuance of the struggle of the Malayan nationalists who preceded us. This motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a challenge to the self-proclaimed true Malayan nationalists. It is also a challenge to those who still waver in their stand. To those who are at the cross roads, the time has come for them to declare on which side of the road they stand. In these circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every true Malayan nationalist, be he in this Chamber or outside, is duty bound to respond and affirm in all consciousness as a true Malayan nationalist that the issue before us must be settled in the spirit in which it is intended.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the beginning I was indeed proud to hear the introductory remarks of the Member for Queenstown, who is also the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis and who has, out of the blue, come into the limelight by his record-breaking feat in the Assembly, having wasted 27,000 seconds of the Assembly's time. He prefaced his speech by declaring his and his Party's stand of not being anti-merger. In fact, he and his Party support to the hilt the unification of these two territories. We appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. But he has put forward his amendment to the motion. And it is this "but" that is confusing all of us. For on my part, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to congratulate the brains behind the amendment, whether they are inside or outside this Assembly, for their skill and ingenuity in phrasing the amendment. So craftily is the amendment worded that it is made to appear like a neatly wrapped parcel which has almost succeeded in hoodwinking the people. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the neatly wrapped parcel are concealed traces of venomous poison which is very dangerous to the people. Only those whose vision is blurred can be deceived, and those dull-witted can be misled and confused. Where we are concerned, we are able to distinguish the sex of the fishes in the water by their very movement, let alone the venomous poison which is easily discernible by its colour.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no necessity to take us to the history of far-away Northern Ireland, as was related by the Member for Queenstown in this Assembly when he commenced his speech. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, let us for a moment turn to the past and review and assess our position in order to enable us to plot the way ahead and find out the ways of life which are suitable for our people and our State in the future.

It is better to know ourselves than to know others. To a true Malayan nationalist fighter, the term "Federation of Malaya" automatically includes Singapore. The two territories are inseparable, be it from the historical, geographical or any other point of view. Hence, Mr Deputy Speaker, the separation imposed upon the Federation of Malaya and Singapore is, in fact, tantamount to the commission of a criminal act, as stated earlier by my colleague, the Hon. the Minister for Labour, when he introduced this motion. The separation of these two territories afflicts the hearts and minds of all true-hearted Malayan nationalist freedom fighters. Although this does not in any way dampen our spirits or mar our determination, this man-made division in fact, further kindles the fire of nationalism and intensify our faith to reunite the two territories by confronting and eliminating colonialism, in any form, whether from the West or the East. And more especially against the colonial stooges whose desire it is for the State to worship the West or East, and specifically Moscow. All these factors are obstacles to hinder and prevent the development of a true Malayan nationalist ideal from becoming deeply rooted and embedded in the hearts and minds of the people who love this fair land of ours.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we should not forget that ever since the British colonialists set their foot on our soil on a mission of colonial exploitation, they immediately partitioned and tore asunder our tiny State into twelve midget States and formed three different colonial administrations, namely, three countries, to form the Straits Settlements, the four Malay States forming what was known as the Federated Malay States, and five other States to form the Unfederated Malay States, or British Protected States. This is not the history of Northern Ireland, Mr Deputy Speaker. That, in brief, was how the British colonialists implemented their divide and rule policy on our small fatherland before the outbreak of the Second World War.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let us now review briefly the local political situation after the Second World War. During the transitional period of handing over admini stration from the Japanese Fascists to the Allied Powers, the British colonial government despatched a mission to obtain the signatures of the Malay rulers by which sovereignty would be transferred to the British, and thereby created the Malayan Union. If I were to make a review of this, Mr Deputy Speaker, it does not mean that I am bringing up communalism, but merely to explain the history of our fatherland for the benefit of our future.

There was widespread and strong opposition. Feelings were running high among the Malay masses. Eventually the Malayan Union was sent to the grave in 1948. The opposition movement to the Malayan Union resulted in the birth of a Malay political movement known as U.M.N.O. under the leadership of Dato Onn Bin Ja'afar in 1946 which adopted the slogan, "Hidup Melayu", or "Long live the Malays". This is, however, important. The progressive Malay nationalist forces formed another political Party called the Malay Nationalist Party of Malaya, which subsequently formed a Youth Section and a Women's Section. The slogan adopted was "Merdeka". The controversy between these two groups, i.e. the Party with the slogan "Long live the Malays" and the Party with the slogan "Merdeka", intensified and became worse when the Federation of Malaya Agreement was to be implemented. The progressive Malay nationalist forces, with the Malayan Nationalist Party of Malaya initiating the move, organised and united all factions of Malay nationalists into one federation called the People's United Front, or PUTRA abbreviated, as mentioned by the Member for Queenstown, in his speech. At the same time, PUTRA called upon the non-Malay nationalists to form a separate federation. This federation gave birth to the All-Malayan Council for Joint Action or abbreviated A.M.C.J.A. Subsequently, these progressive federations were amalgamated into PUTRA-A.M.C.J.A. This federation later drafted the People's Constitution as a countermand to the Federation of Malaya Agreement, which came into operation in February 1948.

Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst on the subject of this Putra-A.M.C.J.A., I must confess that I was greatly impressed by the remarks of the Member for Queenstown when he mentioned this Federation. He also quoted the People's Constitution. He said that those people who have now been branded as pro-Communists did participate actively in the Putra-A.M.C.J.A. which was considered to be a true Malayan nationalist movement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Member for Queenstown when he and his friends came to know of Putra A.M.C.J.A. and whether he has ever taken the trouble to make a thorough study of the People's Constitution which he mentioned? Are all the people who support the People's Constitution and Putra-A.M.C.J.A. non-Communist Malayan nationalists? or are they pro-Communists or genuine Communists cloaked or dressed like wolves in sheep's clothing?

Mr Deputy Speaker, much of the time of the Assembly would be taken up if I were to describe in detail the attempts made by the Malayan Communist Party to ride on the backs of Malayan nationalists in order to achieve their own political ideology. This may possibly result in my having to break the record-breaking feat of the Member for Queenstown. However, I will rest content with the Member for Queenstown holding the record. For my part, I shall briefly attempt to relate the objective for which all true Malayan nationalists have fought. At the same time, I shall expose the real aims and activities of the pro-Communists and the Communist cadres who have infiltrated into the Malayan nationalist political movements. Before doing so, I wish to ask the Member for Queenstown again this question. There is no need for me to challenge anybody else. Are all the progressive Malayan nationalists who support Putra-A.M.C.J.A. true Malayan nationalists? I believe that at that time the Member for Queenstown was busying himself with medical practice. Secondly, the Member for Queenstown has referred to the People's Constitution. But has he studied it carefully and are his followers and he really prepared to make the People's Constitution the basis of his Party's manifesto, with all its implications, which, among other things, states that Singapore is part of the Federation of Malaya? This is important. It is not communalism. But it is enshrined in the People's Constitution that Malaya is the sovereign right of the Malays, that Malayan citizenship is "Melayu", with undivided devotion and loyalty -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order. What has that got to do with our amendment?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): The hon. Member should realise the difficulty of the Chair. Earlier the Chair has made an announcement, and what I have to do as Chairman is to refer Members to Standing Order 54. As Chairman I consider that what the hon. Member is saying is quite relevant to the amendment, because it is a little subject on the past history of the Federation, and is quite within the amendment. Inche Yaacob.

Inche Yaacob Bin Ibrahim: (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, what I have related so far is closely associated. We cannot create something new without first reviewing the past. Nationalists have pioneered the way for our present nationalists to fight. So we should go back to the past so that we may not be led astray. Mr Deputy Speaker, the articles contained in the People's Constitution were mentioned by the Member for Queenstown in his speech. Mr Deputy Speaker, if we have not studied the People's Constitution thoroughly, do not crow when we do not know head or tail of what we are crowing about.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to clarify about the sincerity of the Communists and the pro-Communists who were at work with Malayan nationalist forces in the struggle for Malayan independence, including the independence of Singapore, when they fought against the British. Of course, in the struggle against the common enemy, that is British colonialism, they fought shoulder to shoulder with Malayan nationalist forces. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, how far did their sincerity go? When the People's Constitution was drawn up by Malayan nationalists, the Malayan Communist Party really gave their sympathetic support. But they refused to be signatories; they refused to be tied to the ideals of the Malayan nationalist struggle. Therefore, when the Emergency was declared in Malaya, the Malayan Communist Party withdrew their sympathy for the People's Constitution because they failed to persuade the Malayan nationalist fighters to take up arms against British colonialism, although they did manage to drag a handful of Malayan nationalists to join them in the armed insurrection in Malaya. Mr Deputy Speaker, it will be clearly seen, therefore, that the object of the Communists was to make use of the Malayan nationalist movement as a vehicle for the achievement of their sinister aims.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on this matter, this reminds me of the political terminology used by the Communists, i.e., social chauvinism, a political definition which means that the principle is to support nationalist movements, especially in times of war. The Left-wing socialists or Communists must support any form of national administration in a given State. But, at the same time, they should exploit the situation by creating economic and political crises and to organise the people so that they would be in the mood for social revolution in order to establish a Communist State. In a similar way, they hope to use the nationalist movement as a steppingstone. Of course, they themselves pose as nationalists. We have studied these Communist tactics. We know the political A B C taught by the Communists in Malaya. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is the Communist method of struggle. They hide behind the facade of nationalist movements and behave like wolves in sheep's clothing.

Let us now revert to the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown. He claims to have graduated as a Left-wing socialist only after reading tit-bits from Marxist and Leninist pamphlets. There are at least four underlying motives behind his amendment, namely:

(1) To influence the people to reject and wreck merger, because he knows that if we demand complete merger based on Malayan history and within the context of the Malayan situation, the Federation Government will reject the demand. So their aim is to avert merger. But it is regrettable to see that they prefer to live under British colonialism.

(2) Failing to subvert merger completely, they will attempt to delay as long as they possibly can the trend of merger until such time as their stooges in the person of D. R. Seenivasagam or Lim Kean Siew and others have formed the Government in the Federation. I think by that time there will be no happenings such as I have stated.

(3) Should they succeed in their two plans referred to above, they can brag to the people and claim that they are the real saviours who have fought to safeguard the fundamental interests of the people of Singapore. In this way, they dream of being elected by the people in order to form the government. We know they have already designated the would-be Prime Minister.

(4) With the formation of the Government, the next logical thing follows, that is, Singapore will be turned into a base for the dissemination of Communism in South-East Asia which, in course of time, will be able to control the whole of the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Moment of interruption. Mr Rajaratnam.