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

2.48 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 of Merger Day".' -(Dr Lee Siew Choh).

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

2.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I gave a resume of the pre-war history and the post-war political developments of our fatherland. I also related briefly how the Communists and pro-Communists in Malaya manipulated, manoeuvred and posed themselves as true Malayan nationalists. Mr Speaker, Sir, at that time, the Malayan nationalist fighters were quite prepared to struggle in close co-operation with them so long as they did not infringe or transgress upon national interests.

With reference to the amendment of the Member for Queenstown, I said yesterday that it has at least four veiled motives. It is evident that party interests and party ideology take first place, with the Communist back-room boys giving instructions. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis and other political Parties having an identical political ideology are sincere in wanting a full and complete merger, why have the words "complete merger" not been inserted without the necessity to accentuate citizenship? In other words, a complete merger means the acceptance without qualification of the present policies of the Federation of Malaya on citizenship, education, labour, language and other matters. But this is not what they asked for. Their contention is that the rights and interests of the people of the Federation are our rights, but, that the rights and interests of the people of Singapore cannot be interfered with by the Federation. Surely, this is not the spirit of give and take, and it is unjust. Even small children understand this kind of arithmetical calculation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Thomson - he is not here at the moment - posed at least 16 questions which he himself answered. The questions posed were why the people of Singapore could not get this and that and whether the Nanyang University diplomas will be recognised by the Federation of Malaya. All those questions are just like asking rights from the Federation of Malaya. This means that we are prepared to take but not to give.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a married man and my wife is my wife, of course; but if the wife of another person becomes my wife, this is not fair. If the Barisan Sosialis and other political Parties which share the views of the Barisan Sosialis are really sincere and responsible in their desire for merger, they must openly declare their acceptance of the present Federation Constitution - chapter and verse. They must also be prepared to give an undertaking to this Assembly and to all the people of Singapore that their stand is acceptable and that the people will be behind them, otherwise they should not try and hide behind a smokescreen or attempt to fish in troubled waters or try to poke at a hornet's nest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the points raised by the Member for Queenstown in support of his amendment have already been adequately dealt with by my colleagues, but all the same I wish to add a little here and there to give it a finishing touch, just like adding a little more spice to the gravy to make it more appetising. I will be brief, of course, and do not intend to beat the record of the speech of the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown was in a rage when he attempted to convince the House that he and his Party alone were the real saviours of Singapore. Let us look at the accusations that he hurled against the nationalist fighters, independence through merger, the tabling of the White Paper, and the motion under debate. He said that Singapore has been sold, that the Tunku wants Singapore but not her people and that when British colonialism goes out of the front door, another form of colonialism will enter from the back door. He equated Singapore to the position of a mistress, its people as second-class citizens, and many other hackneyed phrases such as those uttered by a prostitute to her lover or to the man who keeps her.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to the linguist, it is evident that the language of the Member for Queenstown is, according to an old Malay adage, "As the tree, so the fruit." Language reflects the mind. Your demeanour reflects your character. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, everything is clear to us. The evidence is as clear as daylight.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the basis of unity and solidarity of a nation is the devotion and undivided loyalty of its citizens to the State. The absence of these factors will result in the destruction of the State. "When a house is on fire, the rats run helter skelter," - so goes another Malay saying. Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore, undivided loyalty is one of the absolute prerequisites for a strong and united nation and State. Only by sacrifices can we prove our sincerity and loyalty to the State. Take an easy example - for the benefit of Members who claim themselves to be representatives of the Barisan Sosialis - the Russian Communist Party. Yuri Gagarin, the first cosmonaut, was accepted as a fully-fledged member of the Russian Communist Party only after his perilous performance of orbiting round the earth. This was a sacrifice. Mr Speaker, when I say that the basis of unity and strength of a nation rests on the undivided loyalty of the citizens, it does not imply that I am accusing the people of Singapore, whether in this House or outside, that they are disloyal to the State. That is not my intention at all, Mr Speaker.

I was listening attentively to the greater part of the speeches made by the Opposition Members, particularly from the group of 13 who style themselves the Barisan Sosialis, and who have all the time been emphasising on automatic citizenship.

I believe, Mr Speaker, that there is no one in this Assembly who will not agree to automatic citizenship if the Federation Government is willing to accept this. The Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, rejected this demand, as contained in his communication dated 13th November, 1961, to the Singapore Prime Minister, and circulated to all Members. The decision of the Tunku, according to his letter rejecting this demand, clearly reflects the view of the people of the Federation of Malaya. This view is based on the Federation Constitution, although Article 22 of the Constitution states that Parliament can decide and determine the rights of the people of a new State on joining the Federation. But can this demand he acceptable to the Members of Parliament in the Federation? The views of the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, represent the stand of his Government and the Alliance Party, which is now in power.

If this motion were moved in Parliament, I am sure the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party would rise in strong opposition. There may be a handful of men who will support the demand of the Barisan Sosialis in Singapore

• people like Mr D. R. Seenivasagam, Mr Lim Kean Siew, and a few other puppets, representing only a small minority in the Parliament. In facing a national issue that involves a multi-racial society like Singapore, we must attempt to resolve it in a spirit of sincerity and compromise which will riot adversely affect the interests of any particular section in the community. In order to prove and demonstrate our loyalty to the State, we should be prepared to make sacrifices. There is no struggle that does not call for sacrifice. We must study the historical background of our fatherland, and we should accordingly be guided in our struggle to achieve national objectives.

Mr Speaker, we should not allow ourselves to be carried away by sentiments, because this will be detrimental to our national unity, which has been developed by our nationalist heroes who have sacrificed their all and who have undergone repressive and oppressive treatment in the past. Mr Speaker, no struggle will be achieved in one day, just as Rome was not built in a day. Therefore, we, as leaders of a nation, fighters of the State, must have cool minds and seek all avenues of approach in order to resolve our difficulties. In this way we can demonstrate to the people that we are citizens with an undivided loyalty to the State and thereby convince our brothers in the Federation that we are truly their brethren of the same nation and enjoying the same fate. To true Malayan nationalists or to the self-proclaimed leaders, this should be the first task which they must discharge. To be overcome by political sentiments and party ideologies in order to win the support of the people will not solve our national problems.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, to those who allege that Singapore has been sold to the Federation, or that Singapore will he colonised by Malaya, or that Singapore will become another Manchuria, I say categorically and in all frankness that such people are insincere and that they do not regard Malaya as the object of their sole and undivided loyalty. I wish to repeat this, Mr Speaker - such people are insincere and they do not regard Malaya as the object of their sole and undivided loyalty. My charge is justified, Mr Speaker, for we are all agreed unanimously that Malaya and Singapore are one, that is to say, one country. We are in the process of building a united Malayan nation. Therefore, those who regard themselves as aliens or regard Singapore as an alien country clearly consider themselves un-Malayans. It is impossible for a nation to colonise its own people. The people in Malaya are all our brothers, of the same kind and enjoying the same fate. The same can he said for those who refuse to acknowledge Singapore as being a part of the Federation of Malaya. If Formosa reverts to the mainland of China, does it mean that the Republic of China is colonising Formosa or Taiwan? It is a different case if the Americans go to Formosa or Taiwan. But if Formosa reverts to Communist China, to me it is not a form of colonisation. If they really contend that Singapore forms part of the Federation of Malaya and that we belong to the same nation and are known as the people of Malaya, then there is nothing to fear. I feel the debate in this Assembly would have taken the form of a more sincere and sober note, and such diatribes as "to colonise", "sell-out", "Manchurian incident", or what have you, would not have been uttered in this Assembly by people with any sense of decency at all towards their brothers in the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, of course, we can discuss our rights and our grievances. Or we can even ask for complete merger and so on. This is in the true spirit of democratic practice. But to indulge in such vituperation will certainly result in explosive consequences detrimental to our efforts to bring about unity to our people, and to create a united Malayan nation in our multi-racial society.

Mr Speaker, I sincerely exhort and appeal from the bottom of my heart to all those who have found themselves astray at the end of the road to go back to the start so that they may not get completely lost altogether. The allegation that the Singapore Prime Minister has succeeded in persuading and convincing the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya with frightening stories is, I believe, tantamount to ridiculing a Government which was elected by the people. It is also an insult to the people of Malaya, who have elected their Prime Minister, that their Prime Minister can easily be influenced by the Prime Minister of Singapore. I am saying this in the interest of unity of both the peoples of the two territories. There are people who say that this merger proposal was not written in the P.A.P. Five-Year Plan and so why must merger be accelerated? Does it mean that we shall have to wait? May I ask; until Mr D. R. Seenivasagam, or Mr Lim Kean Siew, or even the stooges, or even the Malayan Communist Party, hold the reins of the Federation government, who can achieve merger before us? Answer yourself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the challenge that general elections should be held both in Singapore and in the Federation, I feel that as regards Singapore the challenge has already been answered but I will further answer it later on. With regard to the Federation, let the people of the Federation themselves give the answer. It is hardly becoming of us if we in Singapore, as one of the twelve States of the Federation, were to demand our brothers in the other eleven States to obey our beckoning. This is yet another instance of the Barisan's own vileness.

The Member for Queenstown has posed this question: "Has our Prime Minister carried the fight for an equality of status for the people of Singapore into the Federation Parliament?" I feel this question is like the nightmare of a person who is sleeping during the day. We are not as yet merged with the Federation. We have no representatives in the Federation Parliament to voice our demands. Tarry a while until the time when we can send our representatives to the Federal Parliament when merger has taken place. In the meantime, I wonder whether the Barisan Sosialis already have their representatives or agents in the Federation Parliament, in the persons of Mr Lim Kean Siew and Mr D. R. Seenivasagam, to put forward their demands. That I would not like to say.

Mr Speaker, with regard to "merger", several Members of the Assembly have given various definitions. There are those who say that merger is like a marriage. But there are different kinds of marriages. I am not a doctor of matrimony, Mr Speaker, Sir, and perhaps that is why I find it somewhat perplexings to grasp this analogy. If the analogy of matrimony is advanced, I say surely you would not expect to beget yourself a child on the morrow of your wedding day. Unless, of course, there are other ways of begetting legal children! I am not a doctor like the Member for Nee Soon. For me, Mr Speaker, I would draw the analogy of a big river with twelve minor tributaries. Eleven of these tributaries have been freed of obstruction and have joined the main river. But one of these tributaries has had a harrier placed at its confluence, so that its water is not free to flow out into the main river. When the harrier at the confluence is removed, the water will be able to flow freely to join the main river. However, upon so doing, the water from the tributary will not automatically change its characteristic. That is to say, its taste, its colour, and so on, will not be identical with those of the water in the main river. It is only after it has undergone several phases of the tide that its identity will be completely merged with that of the rest, in the fullest sense of the word.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is anyone whose thinking is confused and whose stand is wavering and uncertain, that person is the Member for Cairnhill. There was a time when he would thump his chest and proudly exclaim that only his Party could bring about merger with the Federation of Malaya. But now the hollowness of his words are only too obvious. Nevertheless, the Member for Cairnhill has other excuses to put forward to explain why he cannot concede that the basic agreements as contained in the White Paper do, in fact, constitute merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, he merely depends on the newspapers. But he did not take into consideration the paper-work that has been going on. We have not forgotten yet, Mr Speaker, that the Secretary-General of the S.P.A., Mr Lim Choon Mong, who was also probably an adviser to the Member for Cairnhill, and sometime ago that only the S.P.A. could succeed in bringing about merger.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder how all this is relevant to the amendment. All that the hon. Member is saying is, probably the Member for Cairnhill and his Party failed to obtain merger. Where is the relevance to the amendment?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): I feel, Mr Speaker, that we are now on the question of merger, and I am replying to the arguments that have been put forward by the Member for Cairnhill, who is a representative of his Party in the Assembly. Therefore, I was touching on his stand and that of his Party on the question of merger which we are now debating in this Assembly. But, Mr Speaker, what can the Member for Cairnhill say now? He can only say, "If the S.P.A. were in power, we too would be able to achieve what is contained in the White Paper, or even more." As the Malay saying has it. "When the house is completed, the chisel is heard. When the matter is settled, you put in your word."

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to speak a great deal about the Member for Cairnhill. It appears to me that the demeanour of the Member for Anson is no different. Intentionally or unintentionally, he has been defending his clients from the Barisan Sosialis who, according to him, are in a pitiable state as the Barisan Sosialis have no legal adviser in this House. But the Member for Anson is forgetting that they have many advisers waiting outside this Assembly. According to the Member for Anson, the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown is to make the definition of "merger" more complete. What is surprising is this. Why should citizenship alone complete the definition of merger? Why not say, "Full merger", which by itself embraces the question of citizenship, education, language, culture, internal security, etc.?

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is even more surprising is that he and his own Party have not yet decided on a clear stand on the question of merger. In his speech last Thursday, he showed his considerable skill at staking his bets. His habit is to have a stake on all sides so that he will not be a loser. If there are four digits, he will lay his stake on all the four digits so that whichever way it goes, he will not be the loser. So also is his strategem in politics. He wants merger with the Federation. He also desires independence for Singapore. He welcomes full internal self-government. He also welcomes an international status for Singapore with the State being placed under the protection of the United Nations. Indeed, he will even countenance Singapore deteriorating into another Congo.

In his speech last week, he showed his true form once again. He said, "Curse the Communists!" He also said, "Beware of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, who are pro-Communists, and beware of their intelligentsia. Then he went on to say. "Tunku Abdul Rahman is a foremost statesman, sincere and honest." But he did not admit to having played up the theme of Communism. "Support the special rights of the Malays." he said. In the same breath, he said, "Cursed be those who say only the Chinese are Communists." Thus, where does he stand, Mr Speaker? He is here, and he is there, so that he is loaded with stands which are all calculated to be to his good. This is the demeanour and disposition of a Member who brings a hammer into this House. Whom does he want to scare and hammer, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Member for Anson has ever brought a hammer into this House. I would object to that.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, he may not be bringing a hammer, but he brings the symbol of a hammer. Mr Speaker, Sir, the time has come. Before us now lies the national issue to be decided by us. We wish to see every Member of the Assembly declaring his stand - whether he is with the nationalists or otherwise.

Mr Speaker, it was queer to note the Member for Nee Soon assuming the mannerism of a professor when he analysed the P.A.P. souvenir booklet - "The Tasks Ahead." He made himself out to be a truly genuine socialist after having read only a few pamphlets and booklets. Unfortunately, he is not here. He analysed the P.A.P. struggle in the manner of Khrushchev analysing the struggle of Stalin and those of other major leaders of Communist Russia. He then came to the conclusion that the policy carried out by Stalin, Molotov, Malinkov and others have all deviated from the true Communist policies. Thus it was with the Member for Nee Soon when he analysed the P.A.P. struggle. Because he could not undertake the responsibility of collective leadership, he came to the conclusion that the P.A.P. has deviated from its true socialist stand. This is the same deviationist attitude of the Communists. For our part, Mr Speaker, Sir, we who have gone through political stress and strain understand full well the techniques of people of the Member for Nee Soon's ilk. In order to uphold their precarious stand, they accuse others of having deviated. Believe you me, Mr Speaker, their seeming strength which is that of ice will not endure. It will of itself melt away without the necessity of anyone else breaking it up into pieces. I say, pray do not indulge in chest-thumping as is often done by Members of the Barisan Sosialis who say that their leaders, especially the people who are outside this Assembly, are ready for sacrifices and will continue to make sacrifices and are not afraid of imprisonment and so forth. We too are so, Mr Speaker. Do they think we are cowards! History will yet judge it. This is the attitude of the people who could not ride us as their hobby-horse, say things which are untoward and unbecoming -

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member, I see, has the habit of fishing for more bait from his seat. May I remind him of the announcement I read? It was rather lengthy, but I will read the last sentence again. It says:

'I invite Honourable Members to adopt the course suggested, that is, to say, to subject themselves to self-discipline and so to see that their speeches are not unnecessarily lengthy and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.'

I would suggest that the speech made up till now is unnecessarily lengthy.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length so as to break the record now held by the Member for Queenstown, hut I am merely replying to some of the criticisms and challenges brought out by Members on the opposite side.

Mr Speaker, when the hon. Member for Nee Soon stated in this House that merger would hinder the spread and development of socialism because the merger proposals are sullied with politics, I felt surprised. We are elected from political Parties. Surely the results achieved whether in respect of national development or of merger are all political achievements. If you plant a durian tree, the fruit you expect to gather will surely be durians. Similarly, you cannot expect a goat to give birth to a duckling -

Mr Speaker: Possibly all these metaphors and similes are making the hon. Member's speech lengthy.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make short ones. With regard to merger hindering the spread and development of socialism, we can clearly see now why the Member for Nee Soon is afraid of merger. I say without hesitation that this merely shows the Member's lack of knowledge of politics. I do not know if by socialism he means Communism. The people of Malaya previously were not very alive to socialism even though there were several aspects of it practised during their life-time. Even so, socialism has not made very rapid progress then. Mr Speaker, socialism will continue to spread whether during the colonial regime or after Malaya has become independent and Singapore has achieved self-government. The spread of socialism will go on relentlessly like the tide which no obstruction can hinder. It is only novices in politics who are unaware of this reality. We in the P.A.P., even after the achievement of merger, will resolutely remain a socialist Party - a socialist, democratic, non-Communist Party - and will forever adhere to this ideology. So long as the struggle is on constitutional lines there need be no fear whatsoever. In Malaya itself there are labour Parties claiming to adhere to socialism. The Party Rakyat with their proletarian ideology. We cannot see wherein lies the obstacle to the spread and development of socialism that is feared by the Member for Nee Soon. Perhaps if the struggle is to be carried out outside this Assembly on Communist lines, that is another matter.

Now, the Member for Nee Soon drew attention to chauvinism. What did he say'? He said in Singapore there was no longer any chauvinism. As an instance, he said Malay Members in the Government, including myself, were returned with large majorities by Chinese voters. I do acknowledge that, and I am convinced that in the future, whoever stands for election, the result will be the same. But why did the Member for Nec Soon bring up this matter here in this House? Is there some hidden motive behind it, or is he now attempting, as it were, to throw a brick and then hide his hand behind him? To bring up matters of this nature is like imputing that it was we who had brought about chauvinism and who were not grateful to the voters who had returned us. We would like to reiterate that we always appreciate the stand taken by the voters. Our stand is clear. Communalism is the enemy and the main obstacles in our efforts to bring about a united Malayan nation. Therefore, I say those who carry out the policy of communalism are indeed the enemies of every true Malayan nationalist in this young State of ours. We realise, and we are firmly convinced, that only a Party which is non-communal in outlook will be able to succeed in the efforts to save the State and bring about a united Malayan nation.

The P.A.P. is a socialist, democratic and non-Communist Party fighting towards that objective. We were elected to the Assembly on the P.A.P. ticket, and the people in our constituencies have placed their faith in the P.A.P. as a socialist Party which is non-communal. We stand resolutely on that firm policy. Mr Speaker, only waverers and saboteurs and cowards will undertake to run away from their very important responsibilities. They merely make utterances in the Assembly, and with typical bovine docility they serve a purpose like that of the proverbial cow which gets a name for the milk produced by the buffalo. This is the attitude of people who thump their chests in this Assembly like the blind man who has lost his stick.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to Members of the Barisan Sosialis, especially the Member for Thomson who is not here, and who always says that the Government in the Federation at the moment is a Right-wing Government and its education policy is misguided, and that the P.A.P., as a Left-wing political Party, has gone on bended knees to this Government, implying that the P.A.P. has deviated to the Right, I feel this shows the true colours of these people. This shows the shallowness of these people in political know-how. He and his comrades are unable to distinguish between national and ideological matters. The merger of these two territories is a national matter. The State is like an enterprise, whilst the political ideology is an instrument of policy by which that enterprise organises and administers its affairs. Even after merger has been effected, the P.A.P.'s stand will resolutely be non-Communist, socialist and democratic. There is not a single Party in the world which can accept fully the policy of another political Party or another government whose policy is diametrically opposed to its own ideology. We say that Communist China, Russia and Albania all have different policies. So to bring about a change in the policy of a State would naturally take a long time until the people of this State are prepared to accept the change in the policy and ideology of the Party. We are living in a State practising parliamentary democracy. For instance. Party A may be holding the reigns of government. The next day, it may be Party B or possibly the Barisan Sosialis. Take Kerala for instance. After the Communist Party had formed the Government, in the following general election the people of Kerala resisted and rejected the Communist ideology and elected instead the Congress Party to form the new government. This is the practical reality of parliamentary democracy. If the Government is Right-wing now, this should not be the reason why merger should not take place. Merger should not be -

Mr Speaker: I hope the hon. Member is not getting angry with the Speaker. I suggest that if he looks at the Speaker, then possibly he will not lose his temper.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Yaacob: (In Malay): I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Queenstown pointed at me likewise the other day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should realise that one man's meat is another man's poison. Ours is not the kind of democracy that is bragged about by Communist countries where the lives of the people are solely in the hands of the Communist Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rise and fall of any government is left in the hands of the people. The people give us the mandate and they alone can take it away from us. So let the Member for Thomson and other hon. Members in the Barisan Sosialis realise this: set yourself aright first before you start to put other people aright; do not be a stooge and allow yourself to be used as an instrument or a tool by irresponsible elements who do not have the interest of the State at heart.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the sake of bringing about the realisation of a united Malayan nation, in all sincerity and earnestness, once again I say to them - and appeal to them - "If you find that you have strayed from the right path into the wilderness, do retrace your steps and come back to the highway." We in this House are some of the drivers on that journey. A good driver is one who drives his car with care, and in heading towards his destination he is alert to the environment along the way, always keeping a wary glance to the right, left, front and the rear so that the safety of the car and of its passengers is ensured. Therefore, let us face the national issue with true inspiration and a genuine spirit of Malayan nationalism. Perchance we will be able to discharge our responsibilities to the utmost in the interest of the security of the State and of the unity of the nation.

In conclusion - although I have more to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I will heed your advice; I do not wish to break the record of the Member for Queenstown - I challenge each and every Member of this Assembly to declare his stand on the national issue that is very clearly and plainly before us. The national issue waits to be resolved by the decision of every Malayan nationalist. On which side of the line do you stand? Are you on the side of the true Malayan nationalists, or on the side of the anti-Malayan nationalists?

Mr Speaker: Am I right in saying that the hon. Member is using the words "Barisan Sosialis" or just "you"?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Yaacob: (In Malay): Nationalists and not the Barisan Sosialis, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Carry on.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Yaacob: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, once more, with sincerity and earnestness, let us face this problem with an open heart and with a full realisation of the interests of our State and our generations to come.

3.51 p.m.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in our world there are often imposters. Therefore, amidst the nationalists there are also such imposters. These people arc false nationalists. They say that they want a national reunification in principle, but once reunification is achieved, the people of the two territories will continue to be divided. Where then is the reunification of the two territories'! The P.A.P. are posing as nationalists, but there are others who are the genuine nationalists. The principal aim of these genuine nationalists is this. Once reunification is achieved, the people of the two territories will be able to undertake an identical life in the fields of politics, economics and culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our amendment is based on our dedication to the interest of many thousands of Singapore citizens. However frustrated the socialist movement may feel, we must have confidence to overcome difficulties if only to safeguard the interest of the people of Singapore from being reduced to second-class citizens. As followers of socialism, we should be able to stand firm in the face of great difficulties. In the history of world revolution, only progressive movements can continue to survive and the retrogressive ones will always go backwards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the actions of the Barisan Sosialis are not for the interests of a few of us only. Whatever we do is for the interest of the people of Singapore as a whole. Our opinion is this. After a true merger of the two territories is achieved, the citizens of Singapore and of the Federation of Malaya should have the same citizenship rights. In other words, Singapore citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya on Merger Day. This proposal of the Barisan Sosialis is based on the interest of the citizens of Singapore. But we have very often heard the P.A.P.'s arguments. They claim to be representative of the people. They used to say that they wanted to sacrifice for the people, but now we have seen what they really are. The time has come when many thousands of keen eyes are watching whether the leadership of the P.A.P. are really sincere in fighting for the interests of the people of Singapore, because the destinies of the citizens of Singapore are in the hands of the leadership of the P.A.P. This is a very dangerous time for the future welfare and interests of the people. This is a very important period. The leadership of the P.A.P. want to strengthen their own interests by selling out the interests of the people. They have given the interests of the people of Singapore as a gift to other people. This is a very evil action. If the leadership of the P.A.P. has really worked for the interests of the people of Singapore, then when they come to this important test, it will be seen whether they will endure the test of fire. In other words, their real faces will be exposed - whether they are foxes or angels.

The leaders of the P.A.P. are opposed to our amendment to the motion. They are opposed to our suggestion that we should automatically become citizens of the new Federation after reunification. They have put the blame on us, but actually the blame should be On themselves. Therefore, over 600,000 citizens will be sold away by the P.A.P. In this case, the history of Singapore will tell our offspring that the leaders of the P.A.P. are the sellers of our citizenship.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a nationalist, seeking nationalism at a time when the two territories of our country are separated, will feel very sad about this because we are part of an independent entity, although we had been ruled by colonialists for so long a time; and therefore in an independent federation this aim is very attractive. We should try to be part of an independent nation. As patriots we should review the present situation when the two territories are still being separated, and the task of reuniting the two territories is the most important task which everyone of us should undertake. The reunification of the two territories is what we want. It is not a dishonest cheque. We do not want to cheat the people. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis are never opposed to any true merger. On the contrary, the Barisan Sosialis have always striven hard to seek the reunification of the two territories. But since the sell-out of the people has been exposed, we the Barisan Sosialis have very positively and realistically put forward our stand on merger, and have announced this to all the people.

4.05 p.m.

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

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): What we really want is a kind of merger that looks after the interests of the people, and not after our own interests. To create tension and sell put the citizenship rights of the people of Singapore is not -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chew Chua): Point of order, Sir,Is the Member for Pasir Panjang not repeating the same point again and again - this sell out? He is wasting the time of this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order. I do not think he is repeating the whole speech. If he is, then he will be out of order. Mr Tee Kim Leng.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have already deleted many words in my speech. I think perhaps it will take half an hour to complete my speech due to translation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we the Barisan Sosialis have on many occasions stated publicly that upon a merger of the two territories, Singapore should become the twelfth State of the Federation. Singapore citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation and the ratio of representation in the Federal Parliament should be based on the number of citizens in Singapore, in other words, proportionate representation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to spend too much time on the White Paper setting cut the heads of agreement on merger, but when the Assembly is discussing this White Paper, I shall give my views on it. I do not want to say too much about it now.

On the question of citizenship rights after merger, once again we have very often given a statement on our views and our stand. We have always insisted on a true reunification of the two territories - that the citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the Federation. That is to say, the present 600,000 and more citizens of Singapore, irrespective of whether they come from the Federation, India, Indonesia, China or any other country, i.e. irrespective of their place of origin, should, according to Article 22 of the Federation Constitution, be automatically converted into citizens at the Federation. This is the basic stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the citizenship question. This is the basic and fundamental prerequisite and we will never give way an inch because this is the basic right of the citizens of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have on many occasions heard the Prime Minister talk irrelevantly about merger and the citizenship issue, and not in accord with our proposals in regard to citizenship rights and other side issues. Instead he has tried to confuse and mislead the people. The Prime Minister has very often said that complete merger will mean that only those citizens who were born in Singapore could automatically become citizens of the Federation, This comes from the horse's own mouth. We the Barisan Sosialis have never said so. We wholeheartedly want to achieve what we have advocated and which is contained in the provisions of Article 22 of the Federation of Malaya Constitution. Under Article 22 there is a clear provision saying that:

'If any new territory is admitted to the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, Parliament may by law determine what persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates from which such persons are to be citizens.'

In regard to the question of citizenship rights, the Prime Minister of the Federation has expressed his views. He says that Singapore, apart from the three Bornean territories, i.e., Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak, can be admitted in accordance with Article 22 of the Federation Constitution. The people in these three Bornean territories can automatically become citizens of the new Federation. Why cannot the citizens of Singapore automatically become the citizens of the new Federation? On 16th November, the Tunku said at the Singapore Airport that Singapore is a naughty boy because complete merger would cause unrest to the Federation. That is why the Federation does not want automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federation citizens. But it is incorrect for a Party which professes to be acting and working for the interests of the people of Singapore, to kow-tow to the Federation, to sell out the basic interests of the people, to make the citizens of Singapore second-class citizens, and to let the citizens of Singapore have obligations hut no rights, to do such things. This question is vital to the future and fate of the people of Singapore. The question of citizenship in a merger must be solved through discussions between the two territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Our stand is this. During the course of the discussions on merger between the two territories, the Government should state, as our basic principle, that from the day of merger all citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the new Federation. We insist that we should safeguard the interests of the people of Singapore. We, therefore, maintain positively that once the two territories are merged, all the citizens of Singapore should not lose their citizenship rights.

What the Barisan Sosialis want is that on merger, the present 600,000 citizens of Singapore should be automatically converted into citizens of the Federation. This request is right and reasonable. On the question of general elections and electing representatives to the Federal Parliament, every citizen should have the Pan-Malayan right to stand for election or to vote at any place in the Federation. This merger will have no meaning and no value without these rights. It is no merger at all. Therefore, the P.A.P. type of merger can be said to be a kind of sell-out merger. In fact, it is not based on the reunification of the two territories, and it is not in the interest of the people of the two territories. All Malayan nationalists and patriots will resolutely oppose this kind of merger. The people of Singapore are now very concerned over this question of merger. They are watching our progress. Up till now there have been many classes and many groups of people who have expressed their views on the question of merger. Yesterday the Chinese Chamber of Commerce convened an Executive Committee meeting to discuss this question. They urged that when the two territories merge, the interests of the people of the two territories should not be sold out. They decided to convene a meeting of representatives of civic organisations in Singapore to discuss the question of merger and other related problems. I believe they will reflect the wishes and opinions of all the people of Singapore. When the time comes -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Point of order. Can the Member read out any passage or any statement made by any member of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce concerning the statement?

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Member is reading out, then it is out of order. But the Member was just quoting.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Then he quoted falsely!

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): By that time the P.A.P. leadership will realise the importance of equal citizenship rights on merger. This is not entirely the demand of a few Barisan Sosialis Members.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on 21st November, the Minister for Finance touched on the question of genuine merger of the two territories, in particular, on the question of conversion of Singapore citizenship to Federal citizenship. He admitted that the demand of the Barisan Sosialis is in conformity with the interests of the people of Singapore. He said that the reason why the Government of the Federation of Malaya did not agree to automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federal citizens is that there were Communist elements among the people of Singapore. But I well recall what our Prime Minister said. He said that there were only 300 Communist agents in Singapore. How is it that it has now been increased to 620,000 Communists? Is it not possible that the P.A.P. leaders have taken the opponents of the P.A.P. to mean Communists? So they now try to make the 620,000 people of Singapore out as communists and they are going to sell out the rights of these people. If the P.A.P. leadership deny that the 620,000 people of Singapore are Communists, why then would they not fight for the automatic conversion of these citizens to Federal citizens just for the sake of a few Communists? They would be arrested under the Internal Security Council in Malaya. Why should the Federation of Malaya be so afraid? I think the situation is not that simple. What the Federation of Malaya want is not the people of Singapore. What they want is the territory of Singapore. What the P.A.P. is trying to do is to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore in order to safeguard their position. Therefore, they have collaborated with each other to fulfil their own personal, interests.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Finance has also said that after the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, the people of Singapore will retain their rights as Singapore citizens. They can stand for election in Singapore. The people in the Federation can stand for election in the Federation of Malaya too. Does he mean that before the merger of the two territories, the citizens of Singapore cannot stand for election in Singapore? If so, how did Members of this House come here?

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): On a point of clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): No.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member will not give way. Mr Tee Kim Leng.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Even before the merger of the two territories, the people of Singapore can stand for election in any constituency in the island. After merger Singapore citizens can only retain their right to stand for election in Singapore. What then is the meaning of this merger? The people of these two territories will still continue to be separated. They cannot participate freely in a common political life. They cannot enjoy common economic benefits. Only external affairs and defence will be in the hands of the Federation Government. Furthermore, the people of Singapore will have to hand over $90 million to the Federation Government. If war were to break out in the Federation of Malaya, or if the Federation wished to send troops overseas, then the citizens of Singapore would be conscripted. But the people of Singapore have no right on a national basis. Does it mean that we are giving up $90 million just in exchange for the right to have a national passport?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in these past few days we in this House have been hearing speeches concerning merger with the Federation of Malaya. Every one of the Ministers has his own particular ideas. For example, the Minister for Health and Law, speaking about his idea of merger between the two territories, based his speech on the law. But the Minister for Finance admitted that it is in accordance with Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, hut due to the Communists in Singapore it is impossible to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have heard the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya admit on many occasions that with the reunification of the two territories, Singapore citizens will automatically become citizens of the Federation according to Article 22, so long as it is passed in the Federal Parliament. But the question is whether the Federation Government is willing to do so. We the Barisan Sosialis have moved an amendment to the effect that Singapore citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation. In the past few days, the P.A.P. leadership have found no material to refute our arguments. Their minds are confused and they have lost their reasoning. The frank and sincere Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has also been despised by the P.A.P. leaders. Therefore, in the past few days Government Ministers have said that according to the Federation Constitution, Singapore citizens will not be able to become Federal citizens. They have to apply for citizenship right or through naturalisation. In such a case, more than 600,000 citizens in Singapore will lose their citizenship right. The P.A.P. maintain that they want to keep Singapore citizenship. These are but false and hypocritical arguments. It is just like a cat shedding tears at the plight of the rat. So very pitiful are the P.A.P. leadership. They are on tenterhooks and, at the same time, they have offended the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. The views of the P.A.P. Ministers conflict with those of the Federation on the question of citizenship. The Prime Minister of the Federation has said that Singapore citizens could automatically become Federal citizens according to law. It could be done. But the P.A.P. Ministers have always maintained that it cannot be done. They maintain that the citizens of Singapore will have to apply in accordance with the citizenship provisions of the Federation. From this, it can be seen that -

The Minister for Culture (Mr Rajaratnam) rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Rajaratnam: Point of order. It has struck me, Sir, that the Member is referring extensively to his notes, since he is referring to the same page and repeating the same thing.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not think it is a point of order, but maybe the Member can refer to his pages.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, from this we can see that the P.A.P. Ministers have indirectly accused the Hon. Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya of not understanding the citizenship laws of the Federation. The legal experts of the P.A.P. Government and the P.A.P. Ministers have perhaps been too confused in their opposition to the Barisan Sosialis' amendment. They have thus offended the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. The P.A.P. leadership is rather pitiful.

4.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law (Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, for almost 14 days we have been debating this motion on merger to which an amendment has been moved by the Member for Queens-town. In every speech of the Members from the Barisan Sosialis, there is not one argument put forth by them that can be considered as genuine and sincere. In fact, when the Member for Queenstown delivered his address, which took him 7� hours, I was under the impression that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, whether they are Communists or pro-Communist groups, were prepared to face the hard fact that merger was inevitable. I felt that they were merely asking for the type of merger which they moved in the amendment, that is to say, complete merger with automatic citizenship for all Singapore citizens, and Singapore becoming the twelfth State in the Federation of Malaya. However, it transpires that that is not what they asked for, because after the 7� hours' marathon speech by the Member for Queenstown on complete merger, citizenship, basic and fundamental rights, etc., it led us to think he did, in fact, want a complete merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, this means that he and the Barisan Sosialis want independence through merger. Every Member of the Barisan Sosialis who spoke said that the Barisan Sosialis would struggle for full internal self-government for Singapore, if complete merger could not be effected. Mr Deputy Speaker, the issue before us and the State is whether we want merger as outlined in the basic agreements contained in the White Paper, or merger as suggested by the Member for Queenstown. There are two choices, Mr Deputy Speaker, and not three. The reason being that the third one mentioned by the Member for Queenstown today is obsolete, whilst the people of Singapore and the people of Malaya are struggling for complete independence through merger. What did the Member for Queenstown mean when he moved this out-of-date amendment, that is to say, full internal self-government?

Earlier on, I have said that the Member for Queenstown and his Party are insincere and dishonest. I mean that they know that their demand for merger, with all its implications, is unreasonable and cannot find acceptance by the Federation Government. In the circumstances, they are aware that the demand will be rejected. Therefore, the demand has been deliberately brought up. The second proposal, that is to say, confederation, is also a proposal which is not acceptable to the people, so they go back to the third proposal, that is, a self-governing status with the I.S.C. abolished and responsibility for internal matters being placed in their own hands. What is the meaning of this? If the I.S.C. is abolished and placed in the hands of the Barisan Sosialis, then there is no need for me to relate the consequences and implications. That is the sincerity of the Barisan Sosialis.

4.45 p.m.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by introducing this false merger proposal, the P.A.P. leadership have exposed themselves. All the people in Singapore know that they have sold their interest. When politicians are faced with a desperate position, they will continue to maintain their political line by hook or by crook.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this merger motion by the P.A.P. was actually unnecessary. In this Session of the Legislative Assembly, the most important thing is to debate the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. From the very beginning of the speech, there is mention of merger and it occupies about one-third of the whole of the speech. The contents of the motion of the Minister for Labour could have been included in the text of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. What was the intention or the motive of the Government for not having done so?

The motion of the Prime Minister on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech seeks to ask the Assembly to express its thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech. But when the Government came to know that we were going to expose them with our amendment on merger, they resorted to other means. We want to express our regret that the Government is pursuing a merger policy which is contrary to the interest of the people of the two territories, and we urge them to reorientate its policy in conformity with the ardent desire of the people for a genuine reunification. What did the Government do when we tabled our amendment? They were at their wit's end. They did not know whether to attack us or retreat, knowing that their merger is a sell-out of the interest of the people. Are they to agree with our amendment? If they do so, the Federation Government will be offended, as this is contrary to their policy of selling out the interest of the people. What should the P.A.P. Government then do on the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis? So they think that it is necessary to raise a motion to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, they can hoodwink the people by offering them false hopes for their happiness and comfort, and on the other hand, they can please the Federation Government. In order to please the people of Singapore, they are attempting to whitewash the terms of their motion so as to make it appear very nice. They accuse the British of many things so that they may appear to be anti-colonialists. In order to please the Federation, they have to attack the Barisan Sosialis in the course of debate by alleging that it is a communal Party. That is why the Government have raised this motion, to attack and embarrass us. But the dream of the Government has been smashed by us. On the face of it, the motion looks nice, but between the lines there is something else which is the height of treachery. They want to give the people some false impression because they have not inserted the correct adjective before the word "merger". The Government do not indicate whether it is a true or a phoney merger. Therefore we now have an opportunity to counter-attack the arrogant P.A.P. We have taken them unawares by tabling an amendment to the motion. By adding the word "genuine" before "merger", this is to prevent the P.A.P. from distorting the facts and bamboozling the people. The effect of our amendment is that all Singapore citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation on Merger Day. But this hurried adroitness has caused the ruling clique of the P.A.P. to bring up some other form of trickery. They have tabled a so-called White Paper on merger. One can well imagine the many trickeries and manoeuvres of the P.A.P. No matter how resourceful they can be in the playing of words, terms and the introduction of new trickeries, the people of Singapore know that basically the contents of the motion are very treacherous. They amount to a sell-out of Singapore.

Today when we are debating the question of merger which affects everyone in Singapore and in the Federation of Malaya irrespective of skin and religion, we see the self-professed socialist ruling clique of the P.A.P. fanning the sparks of communalism and trying to arouse suspicion among the different communities in order to sour their relationship with one another. Now, they are fatalist; they are no longer true followers of socialism. They have already forgotten the promises they made in the l959 general elections. At the sitting of 21st November, the Minister for Finance said that the period 1954 to 1959 was a phase in the anti-colonial struggle. How correct this is. It follows that in 1959, when the P.A.P. ruling clique became Ministers, this phase of the anti-colonial struggle should have come to an end.

Mr Rajaratnam: What about you?

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will remember the many policies declared by the P.A.P. to all the people of Singapore in 1959. I hope all the P.A.P. members and Assemblymen will take another look at their Five-Year Plan. We can then understand clearly why they now want to push through this phoney merger with speed and vigour. On 19th April, 1959, at the Jalan Limau mass rally, the present Minister for Culture had this to say. He was responsible for reading the policy -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is quoting from a booklet or a newspaper, he must inform the House from which booklet or newspaper he is quoting.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Just now I said that the hon. Member was responsible for reading an article which is entitled "The Path Towards a Malayan Nation". There is a passage relating to communalism. This is something which the P.A.P. promised to the people of Singapore in the 1959 general elections. This is from Part I of the P.A.P.'s small pamphlet entitled "The Task Ahead". The passage is entitled "Class and Communalism". I hope the Minister for Culture will listen carefully. This is what he himself said.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think this is an appropriate time to adjourn for tea. The Assembly is suspended is suspended until half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.