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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was saying just now that the Minister for Culture had on 19th April, 1959, made a speech entitled "Towards a Malayan Nation". This could be found in the P.A.P.'s "The Tasks Ahead". Now, I want to throw at them their own words. It appears on page 8 of the Chinese version, and on page 14 of the English version. It says:

'In fact the intervention of the racialist merely tends to distract attention from the real causes of economic discontent. For this reason the communal politician often becomes the tool of reactionary vested interests who want to divert the attention of impoverished workers and peasants from the real causes of poverty.

If Chinese, Malay and Indian workers and farmers can be led to believe that economic conflict is based on racial rather than class interests, then, so the forces of reaction calculate, there will be no danger of Chinese, Malay and Indian workers uniting on a class basis to resist exploitation by Chinese, Indian, Malay and British capitalists. Thus it is significant that left-wing and socialist parties in Malaya are organised on a non-racial and non-communal basis. On the other hand communal parties in Malaya, by and large, stand for the economic status quo - that is for a capitalist society.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that on the 21st December the Minister for Finance said that "the purpose and true aim of our merger is to overthrow the Right-wing reactionary Government of the Federation." It is truly so. It is well said. We thank the Minister for Culture very much if he could use the words he used in 1959 to explain to the Minister for Finance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, "the suspicion between the different communities is due to the discontent and fears over economic situations." Can the Minister for Culture recall this statement - "Poverty knows no Race"?

I will now continue to talk about the struggle for the reunification of the two territories and the problem of nation-building. The Minister at that time said that:

'We, of the P.A.P. also believe that an essential part of the struggle to build a Malayan nation is to bring about the merger of Singapore and the Federation. The separation of the two territories was partly the result of communal fears on the part of Malay leaders in the Federation.'

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Low Por Tuck resumed his seat.

Mr Rajaratnam: I think the hon. Member's quotation is not quite complete. Will he read the whole paragraph?

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been quoting this passage from an article which deals with the problem of working "Towards a Malayan Nation". There are only a few sentences more:

'They [i.e., the leaders in the Federation] tear that the acceptance of Singapore as one of the political units of the Federation would result in the Chinese being in the majority. We, of the PAP, reject the myth that political actions are determined on the basis of race.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will repeat this, as stated by the Minister for Culture in the last general elections:

'We, of the P.A.P. reject the myth that political actions are determined on the basis of race.'

He continued:

'Some of our political enemies have alleged that the PAP, is a stumbling block to merger because our so-called "extremist" attitude has frightened Federation leaders. If what is "extreme" is our political ideology - i.e. the ideology of democratic socialism - then merger is being refused not because there is doubt about our devotion to Malayan nationalism hut because of our allegiance to a socialist philosophy.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will reiterate this because it is very important - the reason for refusal of merger is "not because there is doubt about our devotion to Malayan nationalism but because of our allegiance to a socialist philosophy" - and that is why they have rejected it. He continued to say:

'If our right-wing opponents arc right in this then it would be another illustration of our thesis that communalism is often used as a cloak to cover up class interests.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat - "communalism is often used as a cloak to cover up class interests." The Minister for Culture then continued to say:

'However, we believe that merger will come about not by political leaders in Singapore and in the Federation, making a decision on the matter, hut only when the people of Singapore and the Federation want it.'

Mr Speaker, this is the heart of the problem. The realisation of merger does not depend on what the political leaders in Singapore and the Federation decide, hut rather on what the people of Singapore and the Federation want. But today the ruling clique of the P.A.P. have forgotten what they promised to the people in 1959. The Minister for Culture then continued to say:

'...the people of Singapore want merger, the people of the Federation, in particular the Malays, have been frightened into believing that merger means Chinese domination. We in Singapore should by our actions remove such fears. When we do that and when people in the Federation realise that race and religion have nothing to do with politics or economics, then the merger of Singapore and the Federation becomes inevitable.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this was said in 1959. But today, the P.A.P. leadership have forgotten it entirely. You cannot use it to fool the people because this was our promise to the people in 1959.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we use the above quotations to advise those who play with communalism. In other words, only when we and the people of the Federation can understand that religion and race have nothing to do with politics will the time come when the two territories can be merged. There is another quotation by him:

'For the reactionaries the end of communal politics will pose new dangers. It will not longer be possible for them to divert people's attention from the political and economic causes of social unrest by playing up racial issue.'

Mr Speaker, is it not very clear from all these quotations that today the leaders of the P.A.P. have forgotten all these entirely? The most important thing is that they have not only forgotten this but they are now turn-coats. They are no longer socialists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, has raised a series of questions. I think it is not necessary for me to remind the P.A.P. leadership of this. One thing I regret very much is that all these questions which have been raised by us have not been answered by the P.A.P. leadership. They were answered instead by the Parliamentary Secretaries. The answers too were not complete.

The self-professed theoretician of the P.A.P., the Minister for Culture, has avoided these questions and has not answered them. Instead he has used the Straits Times, a colonialist newspaper, to answer us - using the tone used by this newspaper. He said, "Will you please tell us the reason why you are not detained?" He used this question to counter us. He has been many years a -

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of order. Sir, an allegation has been made -

Mr Speaker: Order. When a Member rises on a point of order the Member for Havelock must sit down.

Mr Low Por Tuck: It is not a point of order.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Havelock is not the Speaker! Perhaps he would like to be the Speaker? Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: I was quoted as saying that some people would be put into prison or something like that. He quoted from the Straits Times. I want to know the reference where and when.

Mr Speaker: I think the point is well taken. An allegation has been made that the Minister has made a statement which he now says he has never made. Perhaps the hon. Member for Havelock will be able to quote from a newspaper or from any other document.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Can I answer a few words in English?

Mr Speaker: I am sorry. The hon. Member has chosen to speak in Mandarin. He must carry on in Mandarin.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said just now was that the Minister for Culture has adopted colonialist tactics. That is what I meant. I did not mean that they wanted to arrest anybody.

Mr Speaker: Unless the interpretation was not correct, I think there was a definite statement that the Minister for Culture said in so many words that he wished to put certain Members into prison. If that statement is not correct, then, of course, the Member for Havelock can say he never said that.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): I did not say so just now. I only said that he used this sort of tactics, because I remember when I was detained, the colonial rulers asked me to answer why I should not be detained. According to the general method, if you want to detain a person, you must give what reason you have to detain him. But the Government did not do so. The Government would ask the person detained to give reasons why he should not be detained.

What I mean to say is that the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, has raised a series of questions. But the Government have not answered these questions directly. Instead they have used this tactic to deal with us, namely, the tactic I mentioned just now. It is the duty of the Government to answer our queries. How can the Government shift the burden of replying on to our shoulders? If they cannot answer them, then, Mr Speaker, I call upon them to resign. Step down and let the people elect another government.

Mr Speaker, the henchman of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Culture, said that we -

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of order. Is the term "henchman" a term of abuse, in which case it is unparliamentary; or is it a term of endearment, in which case it is unbecoming?

Mr Speaker: The answer is that if the term "henchman" is used in a certain context and is said to be offensive, then, of course, it is unparliamentary. Then if the Minister says it is offensive, I will certainly rule it as being unparliamentary. I do not think the Minister has said that.

Mr Rajaratnam: In which context would it be meant?

Mr Speaker: I think the interpretation of a word must be the interpretation of the Member offended.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): It is truly so. What I said was "henchman". He said: "We are not dealing with citizenship rights in an abstract way." If so, why then do they not accept our view which is realistic in relation to the problem before us?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the self-professed theoretician of the P.A.P., namely the Hon. Minister for Culture, has requested us to declare our stand whether we accept the education and labour policies of the Federation Government, whether we accept the policy wherein they control our trade and economy, and whether we accept the ratio of 4: 1 for recruitments into the civil service which is now being practised in the Federation. He has also said that our request for automatic Federal citizenship is only used to sabotage merger. All this pretence of sincerity in wanting merger cannot cover up the true facts. The Minister for Culture says that we use all this to camouflage our true desire to sabotage merger. I want to ask our respected Hon. Minister for Culture [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: There have been several epithets thrown across the floor, one side to the other and so on. But these epithets can become offensive if repeated too often and repeated in a tone of voice which is offensive. Mr Low.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we the Barisan Sosialis find it necessary to restate our stand on merger. I hope all hon. Members will not distort these facts or pick phrases at random without regard to their context. This should not be the attitude of a person who is in a responsible position, especially the leadership of the P.A.P.

On the 28th of August this year, we issued a statement of our stand on merger. Although the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis has mentioned it, I want to mention it again. This is because the P.A.P. Ministers have very often distorted our public announcements. Let me quote from our booklet on our stand on merger in the Chinese version:

'We fully support the reunification of the two territories. The separation is the result of the colonial rulers' tactics. We want to try our best to build a new Malayan nation. We resolutely oppose any form of chauvinistic consciousness .We will fight for the consolidation and reunification of all workers, farmers, and intellectuals of all races. We support Malay as our national language.' I will repeat, Sir: 'We support Malay as our national language.'

'We will try our best to promote and foster the formation and development of a common culture of all races of Malaya.

We also say that if the representatives of the Federation of Malaya adopt the same steps on merger as we have adopted, and agree to the realisation of complete merger, then we are prepared to persuade the people of Singapore to agree that Singapore should be the twelfth State of the Federation. Like the other 11 States, we will be an integral part of the new Federation, with Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federation citizens and with proportional representation in the Federal Parliament.

There should be a general election in Singapore to enable the people to make an open choice and to decide on this question, in this general election, we can seek a mandate from the people for the realisation of the immediate establishment of a true and complete merger. Let the Federation Government tell us in unequivocal terms whether they are prepared to persuade the people there to accept Singapore as the twelfth State and to bring about a true and complete merger before 1963.

In fact, the many policies of the present Right-wing Federation Government are what we cannot accept -

Mr Speaker: I think that statement has already been read about three times by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. If the hon. Member paraphrases that statement, it will be much better. We cannot have so much repetition.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before making this quotation, I told you just now that I was going to repeat. The reason is that the P.A.P. Ministers used to distort our stand on merger.

Mr Speaker: That is all very well, but all the Member need say is that his Party's policy statement has been read in this Chamber and he invites the Members on the Government side to read that policy statement again. But I do not think that policy statement should be inflicted on this House three or four times.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you say so, well, it is not necessary for me to repeat. But I hope that, as a responsible Government Minister, when he quotes the speeches made by others, he will do it faithfully and honestly and not distort the facts. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture - he has just disappeared - on the 22nd of November said that this stand taken by the Barisan Sosialis on complete merger was not a true merger. He said the real purpose was to ask for full internal self-government, which includes control over internal security. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Tunku in the Federal Parliament last month very frankly told us that he did not want a true merger. What he wanted was that Singapore should have closer association with the Federation on the basis of partnership. Therefore, we the Barisan Sosialis on the 3rd of November issued a statement. The last passage of the statement clearly tells the people the path of the present constitutional struggle. Let me quote:

'We want to stress once more that merger is our main objective. If merger can immediately be realised, we are prepared to persuade the people of Singapore to accept this opportunity to reunite all the people.

Because the Tunku has clearly stated his stand, our request for immediate merger cannot be realised in the near future. Therefore, we must consider other avenues of constitutional advance.

We agree that we should have some form of relationship with the Federation. This should be on the basis of full internal self-government, including control over internal security, as one step towards eventual merger.

While we are awaiting to establish closer relationship with the Federation, the people's constitutional struggle must not be stopped.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat, while we are awaiting to establish closer relationship with the Federation, the people's constitutional struggle should not now be stopped. When the people want to be united to resolve our many problems, we cannot forget the fact that the existence of the colonial power is the main factor which contributes to the separation of the two territories and the separation of the people of the two territories.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I had better read the relevant Standing Order, because I do not wish to appear to be obstructive, but I am bound by Standing Orders which have been passed by this Assembly. Standing Order 44, which says inter alia:

'...a Member shall not read his speech, but he may read short extracts from books or papers in support of his argument, and may refresh his memory by reference to notes.'

That is, in support of his own arguments. I do not want any extracts, which appear to be the arguments of some other people.

Mr Low Por Tuck: This is exactly what I am doing, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member has gone much further than reading short extracts. He is now reading an opinion on the whole topic expressed by somebody who has written that pamphlet.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a statement issued by the Barisan Sosialis on the road towards the present constitutional struggle. Because on the 22nd of November, the Minister for Culture said that the demand by the Barisan Sosialis for complete merger was not a true merger. I therefore, find it necessary to reiterate our stand on this. There is only a very short passage left.

'The divide and rule policy of the imperialists needs no explanation. Any form of anti-colonial struggle is not inconsistent with the unity of our people. But, on the other hand, it is complementary to it. In marching towards the consolidation of our people, we have to exert ourselves to eliminate colonialism in Singapore completely. Therefore, if we cannot establish a good and complete relationship with the Federation of Malaya in the immediate future, we must struggle for full internal self-government by 1963.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 27th of November, the Minister for Home Affairs mentioned something about me in the Nanyang Siang Pau of 28th November. I quote here:

'The Member for Havelock was Secretary to the PAP. Tanjong Pagar Branch. He convinced the Branch Executive Committee meeting and pledged before all the Executive members that he would resolutely stand together with us to meet all storm and hurricane coming. How brave were these words he uttered! But when the storm and hurricane really came, the Member for Havelock and his few friends hid themselves away in the Federation.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did make such a pledge, but we were making it before our P.A.P. banner and not before any P.A.P. Minister or any individual of the P.A.P. We followed the principles of the Party. We were not doing this to please any individual of the P.A.P. If we did all these for our own personal interests, then I should not be standing here today in this Assembly. But the ruling clique of the P.A.P. have today forgotten what I have said. This was all done at the general elections in 1959. There was no falsehood in my quoting. It is in black and white. But today when they have become Ministers, they have forgotten their promises made to the people in the general elections in 1959.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been debating the question of merger for many days. The ruling clique of the P.A.P. today are still insisting on saying that a partnership relationship is merger. Now, whether the ruling clique of the P.A.P. are sincere or not has been exposed today. The Tunku has on many occasions said that the negotiations between the two Prime Ministers of the two territories are only on a closer relationship and not on merger. It is not merger. All political Parties in Singapore, irrespective of whether they are Left-wing or Right-wing Parties, have said that these arrangements are not of a true merger. Only the P.A.P. have said that it is a merger. I wonder very much why the P.A.P. leadership nowadays do not honestly and frankly want to confess this. I cannot understand the ruling clique of the P.A.P. Do they want to throw the reputation of the P.A.P. into the night-soil pit and let it stay there and stink forever? Though we do not agree with the Tunku's views, we at least find him honest and frank. He has honestly disclosed that he is anti-Communist and does not want merger. The present arrangements are only to prevent the Communists from controlling Singapore. Why does our Prime Minister not want to learn from the Tunku? If he does so, at least he will not be accused by the people of being dishonest and his name will not stink in future years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, the phoney merger proposed by the ruling clique of the P.A.P. has been thoroughly exposed today. All the people of Singapore know that this is a kind of sell-out merger. The ruling clique of the P.A.P. have been playing about with the word "citizenship". They are fishing in troubled waters. They want to hoodwink the people if they can. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to admonish them. The people of Singapore have experienced many a political struggle. They have now become more intelligent and they are not so gullible. They cannot be deceived so easily.

I hope the P.A.P. leadership will give up their attempt and walk on concrete ground. They should think in terms of the daily lives of the people and they should rack their brains to improve the future livelihood of the people. I hope they will check themselves. There is still time for them to turn back. They are now faced with a situation where all their friends have rebelled against them and their relatives have deserted them. They are now with their backs to the wall. They are now at the end of their tether. They are now trying to attack us erratically to maintain their political power and position. This is wrong. I hope they will turn back. There is still time for them to do so.

6.48 p.m.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few days ago, the "General" of the Barisan Sosialis proposed his amendment to the motion. I oppose this amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, because he is opposed to a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): On a point of order, Sir. Just now I clearly stated the views of my Party, and at this very moment an hon. Member here wants to distort our views saying that we are anti merger.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. No Member should get up on a point of order and then start debating. The Member for Tiong Bahru is perfectly entitled to put forward his own opinion. Mr Lee Teck Him.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members opposite -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Tiong Bahru must not lose his temper. He has a Speaker who is controlling the tempo and the temper of this sitting. Mr Lee Teck Him.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): We have our own will and we try to be righteous. Of course, sometimes we cannot help but be angry. The hon. Member says they are not opposed to merger. I think they want an independent Singapore. But Singapore is a small island State. The land is very limited and the population is not very big. How then can it be independent? It is really nonsense to want it to be so. There is not enough of natural produce.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: It must be a point of order, otherwise the hon. Member will be dealt with very strictly.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Yes. We are now discussing merger and not independence.

Mr Speaker: Order. This present debate has been so intertwined with the other debates that I have said time and again that I am being very lenient in these matters. The incidental reference to independence has been allowed in several speeches and will still be allowed by the Chair. Mr Lee Teck Him.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there should be a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya because the people of the two territories are just like fingers of the hand. They are like brothers and they cannot be separated. In the past, the colonial rulers separated the two territories to rule over them. But why should the Member for Queenstown oppose merger now? I think he opposes merger now because he has had a cup of tea with the United Kingdom Commissioner in Singapore. He is willing to be made use of by the British. This is a kind of the British divide-and-rule policy. For the cup of tea he has sipped, he tries to sell out Singapore and its people. But he turns round and accuses us of selling out the people. Of course, since the Barisan Sosialis are now separated from us, they want to attack and ridicule us. They met with defeat. As they were only 13 in number, they wanted to pull us over to their side. But we are 26 in number and they are now only a minority. It is very pitiful. They could not achieve their purpose which was to make one of them the Prime Minister. If they could have mustered 26 Members, then perhaps they could have formed the Government with the Member for Queenstown as the Prime Minister. He wants very much to be the Prime Minister. [Interruption] I do not want to be the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid I do not know Mandarin. So I am missing all these pleasantries. But let us try to have some order. We might be able to save time if there is some order. Mr Lee.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis also claim that many people support them. If there are no people to support them, then, of course, they will not be doing what they are now doing. When the Barisan Sosialis applied for the registration of their Party, they copied out the Constitution of the P.A.P. and used it as their own Constitution.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the fact that the Barisan Sosialis is alleged to have copied the P.A.P. rules has anything at all to do with merger - [Interruption] Order. I had better repeat that. I do not think the alleged fact that the Barisan Sosialis copied the rules of the P.A.P. has anything whatsoever to do with merger, unless the hon. Member is suggesting that the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. should merge!

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mean to say that the Barisan Sosialis consider the P.A.P. Constitution to be so good that they copy it into their Constitution. This constitution is the P.A.P. Constitution. Are they not trying to deceive the people by using the P.A.P. Constitution?

The people of the two territories want merger, but the Barisan Sosialis want to oppose it. This is a kind of sell-out by the Barisan Sosialis. Today we have to regard the Barisan Sosialis as one Mr Kao-kung who was a turncoat in Communist China.

Mr Speaker, the day before yesterday, the Member for Changi said that in every coffee-shop and at every street corner of Singapore, the people are saying that the P.A.P. are no good. All this is not true.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon) rose -

Mr Lee Teck Him resumed his seat.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: It does appear that the Member for Tiong Bahru is reading his speech - or referring far too much to it.

Mr Speaker: I have not noticed that at all. Mr Lee.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): If I were reading my speech, I would not have had the time to gesticulate. in fact, the people are saying that the Barisan Sosialis are no good and that they should not have defected from the P.A.P. The people in coffee-shops and at street corners are saying that they should riot try to sabotage the P.A.P. They are now like worms trying to destroy the P.A.P. I will continue later on as to whether this is correct.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the time of the Hong Lim by-election, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis climbed on to the election platform to say that the P.A.P. was very good and they appealed to the electorate of Hong Lim to vote for the P.A.P. candidate, Mr Jek Yuen Thong. But they now turn round to say that the P.A.P. is no good. They are now slapping themselves on the other cheek. Once they said that the P.A.P. was very good but now they turn round to say that the P.A.P. is no good. This is only trying to slap their own cheek. [Laughter].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): And the so-called 42 trade unions also appealed to the electorate to vote for the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all these unfaithful former P.A.P. members will one day support the British. Now they can be treacherous to the P.A.P. But in future, perhaps Mr Lim Ching Siong and his friends will do the same thing again. This is only a kind of cause and effect, and because this is the opportune time for them, they came out and formed the Barisan Sosialis. Their stand on politics is not stable, like a ship without a rudder. Therefore, the ship can never reach its goal. They claim that they want to fight against the colonialist rulers and achieve what-nots. But they can never realise these things, because their ship has no rudder. So how can they sail on to their self-professed objective? This ship will surely ram into a rock and sink.

The Barisan Sosialis today appear to be very "nice and beautiful", but I say that in no time they will perish because they are arrogant, and I despise them.

Today let me say that the Member for Choa Chu Kang used to criticise the Deputy Prime Minister. We know the Member for Choa Chu Kang in the past had long been following our Prime Minister. He had been together with our Prime Minister. Everybody knows this. His present knowledge of politics has, been acquired from the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. For a moment I thought the hon. Member was shouting at the Speaker. I trust he was not really shouting at the Speaker.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, will you please repeat? I cannot hear very well.

Mr Speaker: Order. I said that the last remark made by the hon. Member was such that I really thought he was shouting at the Chair. I trust he was not.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a common saying in Chinese - a girl has asked her mother to cut out - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. This time I think I must be very strict. The Member for .Nee Soon has been interjecting in spite of my asking him to keep order. I ask him not to int6rject any further.

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Member for Choa Chu Kang be more capable than the Prime Minister?

Now, I want to support the motion moved by the Minister for Labour. Today, the two territories of Singapore and the Federation must merge. There is no other way out. Today the Chinese Chamber of Commerce has convened a Preparatory Committee to discuss this problem. In principle, they have supported this merger. Our Deputy Prime Minister has said that when all the details of merger have been settled, this question will be put to the people and be decided by them.

The Member for Queenstown has said that our merger is a kind of sell-out; that it is a phoney merger. Mr Speaker, of we want a phoney merger, then we need not have to debate this question in the Assembly. We have already spent about one week over this question alone. This shows that we the P.A.P. have no intention to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore. Now I say that the people who try to sell out the interests of the people of Singapore are the Barisan Sosialis.

6.58 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify the problem with which we are faced in this Assembly. As a Malay, and as an U.M.N.O. member, let me say, be it to the P.A.P. which is in power today or to the Barisan Sosialis which has moved the amendment to the motion, this is a moment, in my opinion, which is crucial to our mutual interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, from what has been interpreted into Malay of the exchange of correspondence between the Prime Ministers of Singapore and the Federation, there is one phrase used - to effect the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya in the new Federation of Malaysia. From this, Mr Speaker, Sir, all accusations made of my colleagues, particularly the Member for Geylang Serai, for having adopted a communalistic attitude, are completely improper.

To return to the issue, Mr Speaker. The Barisan Sosialis have been wavering right from the beginning. Although the Member for Thomson has stated the views of his Party, the challenge made by the Publicity Officer of U.M.N.O., Malaya, has not yet been taken up outside this Assembly. They should take it up so that the people of the Federation and Singapore may know what the Barisan's stand is.

Mr Speaker, I very much regret to hear the Member for Changi saying in this Assembly something to the effect that there are people in Singapore who will oppose any attempts by people to sell the island of Singapore. May I ask the Member for Changi this, and if he has no chance of replying as he has already spoken, he could convey his reply to his colleagues who have not yet spoken, or he could reply outside this Assembly: who has the right to sell Singapore, and who has the right to demand Singapore? I am fortunate that the Prime Minister has just entered to listen to what I have to say. I will not accept in their entirety the arguments put forward by the Member for Thomson, whether they be true or not. I want to know once and for all whether it is true that the Tunku was referred to as ayah. I am surprised the Prime Minister of Singapore should, at a time when the Tunku was away in London, have expressed openly - and this was witnessed by thousands of people of Singapore - that the Tunku is, in fact, the father of independent Malaysia. If that was the opinion of the Prime Minister of Singapore, I am quite sure he will categorically deny that such an allegation is untrue. But if the Prime Minister of Singapore could declare openly that the Tunku is the father of independent Malaysia, then we, U.M.N.O., will support to the hilt the opinion of the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, I will not be the stepson of Mao Tse-tung or Khrushchev, because I will oppose the amendment and support the father of independent Malaysia, i.e. Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj. People have said that Singapore has been sold to the Federation of Malaya. If it is true, then the time is opportune that the Tunku must take Singapore, just as Raffles conquered Singapore with pen and paper. So the moment is ripe for the Tunku to take Singapore into the Federation. This has been made clear by the Tunku.

U.N.M.O. particularly did not at one time wish for merger, but now the Tunku wants merger. What are the reasons, Mr Speaker? The reasons are as reported in the newspaper, Berita Harian of 20th October, that if Singapore gets independence, then there is the danger of undesirable elements infiltrating into the Federation. There is no need for me to go into details. This is the reason why Singapore wants to be in much closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya. I do not wish to involve my friend, the Member for Geylang Serai, by mentioning the long "parang" or unsheathing the traditional Malay weapon, the kris or dagger, if the Communists dare to rule Singapore. I have already explained at U.M.N.O. meetings that a conflagration will ensue if Singapore is given full internal self-government. If Singapore rejects the Internal Security Council, it means, Mr Speaker, that communal tension will be intensified in Singapore. Therefore, we oppose the abolition of the Internal Security Council. We had already opposed that line before the Barisan Sosialis was registered in Singapore.

There is another question the answer to which I wish to know. When the Alliance and U.M.N.O., particularly in Malaya, struggled for independence, whether with the inclusion of Singapore or otherwise - I am not supporting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, but I agree with his view that we were fighting colonialism with the seed of the Barisan Sosialis at that time. I seek clarification. Mr Speaker, I hope this clarification will be forthcoming from Members of the Barisan Sosialis who have not yet spoken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to come back to another matter which has been the subject of an allegation, particularly against the Malays. The Member for Thomson said that U.M.N.O., as represented by the Member for Geylang Serai, in his capacity as a member, is a communal organisation. If U.M.N.O. is really a communal political organisation, what communal demand has U.M.N.O. put to the P.A.P. Government? What has been given to us? I hope the Barisan Sosialis will reply to this. What had the Member for Geylang Serai, as an U.M.N.O. representative when he was a Minister in the Labour Front Coalition Government, done to give the impression that he was communal in outlook? I hope the Member for Thomson will clarify this. Or is it his intention to spread communal feelings in Singapore? We are against communalism.

Mr Speaker, this is an important matter because many among us who have accepted Malay as the national language merely pay lip service to it. I observe that it was reported in the news-paper using the national language, the Berita Minggu dated 5th November, 1961, that at the Delegates Conference of U.M.N.O., Malaya, all U.M.N.O. members discussed the question of Merger heatedly. They were opposed to' the idea of Singapore being merged with the Federation. As explained by the Tunku and Tun Razak, the Mentri Besar of Malacca, Inche Ghaffar Baba, opposed the view of the Tunku and Tun Razak at the conference. Why is it that, on our part today, we view with suspicion the struggle of the Malays for independence? If we are still suspicious of the Malays and accuse U.M.N.O. of being a communal organisation, the P.M.I.P. is also a communal organisation. May I say to the Member for Thomson that Inche Ahmad Boestamam is a Malay, and that he was at one time the leader of the youth organisation who fought against British colonialism years back. So do not pay tribute to one side when we do not know what the other side is doing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the dangers which will befall us in our struggle in Singapore if we still feel that U.M.N.O. is a communal organisation. I would like to state here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I do not agree at all with the view that. there should be local autonomy in education and labour. But viewing it from the larger and more important aspect, the P.A.P., by these means, is trying to get benefits for the Chinese people. We can, if we want to, oppose that stand, because that will be to the detriment of the Malays. But we have to come to agreement from time to time. I doubt if the Barisan Sosialis will agree to accept 100 per cent what is enshrined in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya regarding the Federation policies on education and so on. This is merely a political stunt on their part.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has also stated that the leaders of U.M.N.O., particularly those in the Federation, come to Singapore for political reasons and to give political lectures here. This is a small matter, Sir. Why did the Barisan Sosialis members, when they were still in the ranks of the P.A.P., fail to order the Registrar of Societies to refuse registration of our Constitution? If they accepted our Constitution, why then cannot the Federation U.M.N.O. members come down to Singapore to give political talks to U.M.N.O. members here? But after they have come out of the P.A.P., they now say that U.M.N.O. members from the Federation cannot give political lectures here.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): On a point of order. I did not object to Alliance leaders coming to Singapore and delivering speeches. I did point out that they are welcome as our brothers across the Causeway, but that we want the same rights.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): So, Mr Speaker, on he other hand, why cannot political experts from Singapore be allowed to go to the Federation? My answer is that the people of Singapore, including myself, are still under the wings of the British. That is the reason why we should not try to teach the people in the Federation on political matters. They are already independent. But there will be open chances and when the time comes, we will be able to breathe freely. We will then be facing one another in our struggle on a democratic basis. I shall await the day when Singapore and the Federation will be brought closer together, and we will have 15 representatives from Singapore in the Federation Parliament. I hope there will be Members from the Barisan Sosialis and from the P.A.P. who will be successful and who will sit together in the Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. I believe if the Alliance and U.M.N.O. are successful in winning a few seats, we too will sit there, and that will be the time when we will show whether we are communal or otherwise in our efforts to oppose the Communists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang in his speech, which was of considerable length, stated that perhaps there are some of them who will be arrested by the Right-wing people. I am surprised. Why do we wish to arrest the Left-wingers? Are they such devils? Can you tell me that, Mr Speaker, Sir? So, if they are no devils but ordinary human beings, the Right-wing people will oppose them with words which come out of their mouths. If they force us to arrest them, then Dr Ismail, in his capacity as U.M.N.O. representative in the general meeting, has already clearly stated his stand. I do not wish to express here what he, as a responsible Minister, has said he would do to those people whom we can persuade by peaceful means not to bring up communalism.

Mr Speaker, before the Tunku proclaimed the independence of the Federation of Malaya, he made an opening speech at the Second General Assembly of U.M.N.O. on 2nd June, 1957, in U.M.N.O. House, Batu Road, Kuala Lumpur. At that moment, a clash had taken place in Penang. I feel I should tell this House what the Tunku told us representatives of U.M.N.O. who were all Malay members. This is what the Tunku said, "We all know that the public in this country are at the moment making preparations for celebrating the 31st of August becomingly. The people want to -"

Mr Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is reading a bit too fast because the interpreters are finding difficulty. Perhaps he could start again reading slowly.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will continue. The Tunku said, "The people of this country want to celebrate Merdeka. They do not want to have a blood-bath as is intended by the enemies of this country. I still remember what took place in Penang in January this year. The cause of the clash was an instigation as I have stated earlier. During demonstrations there were arguments and all sorts of accusations were hurled back and forth. The Chinese accused the Malays of wanting to do certain things to the Chinese. As a result, innocent people were involved." The Tunku further stated that what had taken place in Penang could well happen again. 'Therefore, I ask members of U.M.N.O. and of the Alliance from this moment onwards to work hard to organise goodwill committees in the various villages, irrespective of political Parties, so that all the people who live in this country could work hard to bring about goodwill among all communities who live together in this country."

So, Mr Speaker, it is clear from that speech made in the General Assembly of U.M.N.O., which was attended by 100 per cent Malay members, that we were asked to keep communal feelings away. But in Singapore, the people still have their suspicions and doubts about the intentions of U.M.N.O., both here and in the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, by the grace of God, it is fortunate that the Tunku has now become the leader to replace Dato Onn. But, Mr Speaker, if Dato Onn -

Mr Speaker: Let us not go into details of that nature, introducing personalities, which really do not affect the merger issue.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): So, Mr Speaker, I feel it is fortunate that we have as our leader someone who is keen to see that we and the Federation come closer together, because if it is any other leader, the position that will befall Singapore and the people therein will be a lot worse for the people who are of various communities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Member for Anson is not here, I do not want him to show that he is a good Red Indian. We do not belong to such tribes and we are not a community that is fond of clashes. But we would like to tell the hon. Member for Anson that he seems to doubt the existence of Communist elements. He would like to know how many Communists there are in Singapore. The Government was keen to assist him with information although it was of a secret nature. I hope the Member for Home Affairs could give clarification. If there are Communists and there are elements which are pro-Communist in Singapore, these Communists and pseudo-Communists have not only have grand-children and great-grand-children in this country. In other words, they have been here for many generations. So I hope the Member for Anson bears this in mind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I do not touch upon what has been said by one of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, then I feel I will die like the Member for Geylang Serai will die and the Member for the Southern Islands will die, without a grave. I say we will have our graves here in our own soil. We cannot accept what has been stated by the Barisan Sosialis who regard Singapore as a Chinese State. They liken Singapore to Manchuria. I am sure you yourself will not agree to that, Mr Speaker, Sir,If you agree, Sir, then surely this matter will be -

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member should not drag the Speaker into this argument. Whether the Speaker agrees or not is something which he will not admit.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg your pardon. I do not want to drag you into the political arena. What I would like to say has a bearing on the allegation that Malays originated from Indonesia. Mr Speaker, if Singapore had come under the British a little later, I am sure Singapore would have been one of the territories under independent Indonesia. Do they like to be treated like people who are not sons of the soil of Indonesia were treated? The Chinese here should be grateful to us, particularly to the Malays who are comprising by nature and who cherish peace and tranquility. Let them not revert to the history of China, likening Singapore to Manchuria, and saying that Singapore is being sold to the Federation of Malaya, because this is something which will not be accepted by any Malay who is a son of the soil. The Member for Queenstown himself has stated that people are physically the same, but that it is only the texture of their skin that is different. If he believes in that, then the time has not come when he can colour the opinion of the Malays.

7.17 p.m.

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

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis are 13 in number today and the Government are 26. May I ask the Barisan Sosialis why not even a single Malay in the P.A.P. has defected to the Barisan Sosialis? Perhaps it is because -

Mr Rajaratnam: They are probably Communists.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): - they are Communists. Perhaps this is an apt explanation. The Malays in the P.A.P. cannot accept Communism in spite of the fact that they are non-Communists. So it is evident and clear that it is the intention of the Communists to make Singapore a Communist colony.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to say that if language reflects a nation, then henceforth let us demonstrate that we are going to build a common nationality within Malaysia and let us not turn our fatherland into a satellite of Moscow or Peking.

7.20 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Tan Kia Gan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queens-town went to great lengths to put forward the Barisan Sosialis' view that we should either have full merger or no merger at all.

Stripped of all the verbiage, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Barisan Sosialis do not want merger and that their amendment is just one of those tactics to confuse the issue.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown spoke with derision regarding the vacant seats in the ranks of the Government Party. May I remind him of two things? Although we are 26, we are strong enough. The Government relies more on quality than quantity, and we do not require men of no political principles to make up quantity. These seats have been vacated because of treacherous and ambitious men who plotted the overthrow of the Government during the Anson by-election. Sir, these men plotted against and betrayed the P.A.P. because they were promised high positions. They were led into believing that they would become Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers overnight. When the plot to capture the Government failed, these 13 Assemblymen found themselves trapped by their own opportunistic ambitions. Now in their despair, they are resorting to acrimonious accusations and wild statements against the Government.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown has challenged the Government to resign, and so have the lesser luminaries of the Barisan Sosialis. May I remind them that they are speaking out of turn and have taken too many things for granted? All the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen should sincerely re-examine their own position before they challenge the Government. Sir, were these people not returned by the voters because they stood as P.A.P. candidates on the P.A.P. platform? Now that they have so treacherously defected, can they still say that they have a mandate from the people? Should it not be proper that they resign their seats to seek a fresh mandate from the people instead of arrogating to themselves the role of the champions of the people?

The Barisan Sosialis accuse the Government of selling out the people of Singapore. They do not, however, indicate how this sell-out comes about. They cannot deny that the Government Party has tried, in the negotiations with the Federation, to secure a merger which provides every safeguard for our citizens. They cannot be unaware of the promise that with merger no Singapore citizen will be worse off. The Barisan Sosialis fear merger and they do not want it to come about. But, Sir, they dare not go against the aspirations of the people. They know that the people of Singapore want merger. They therefore try their best to confuse the issue by insisting on what they call full merger. They have changed their stand more than once during the last few months. At the Anson by-election, their call was for full internal self-government and the abolition of the Internal Security Council. This demand is a sell-out because these champions of anti-colonialism would rather live in a colony under British rule than to be free. Later, they supported the P.A.P. request for merger, retaining autonomy in matters of education and labour. They calculated that the Federation of Malaya was not likely to accept Singapore. Unfortunately for them, their surmise was wrong and the Government was successful in its negotiations for merger on a special basis. Now the Barisan Sosialis want full merger. Surely they under-rate the intelligence of the people if they think that the people do not realise what practical issues are involved. They forget that besides education and labour policies as well as our peculiar entrepot economy, there are other fields such as social welfare services, housing, industrial development and the provision of employment opportunities for a fast growing population, and so on, the problems relating to which are peculiar to Singapore and would best be dealt with on a State rather than on a Federal basis.

The Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen belaboured the point that with merger the 624,000 Singapore citizens would not be able to vote in the Federation, and, this being so, they would become second-class citizens. They do not look at the practical side of the problem and consider the fact that only a limited number of people in Singapore are likely to want to vote outside Singapore and that more people come to Singapore from the Federation than those going away from Singapore. The only adverse effect is that politicians discredited in Singapore cannot look for new constituencies in the Federation. Surely, they are making a mountain out of a molehill about this citizenship issue. For the Member for Queenstown to wax eloquent on the issue of citizenship when only a few weeks ago he betrayed his ignorance of the subject at a radio forum is surely straining our credulity. It can only show that he is little more than a mouthpiece - His Master's Voice in Hi-Fi. Unfortunately, it is true that puppets seldom realise that they are being played for suckers. Sir, history abounds with thousands of cases where stooges and puppets and collaborators have on the success of their master's schemes been eliminated, liquidated or laid to rest in unknown graves once their usefulness has run out. These aspiring to be Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers who are prepared to be manipulated will find that when their usefulness comes to an end, they are the ones who will be relegated to oblivion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is possible to take the extreme view and say that unless we are in every respect treated exactly the same as all the constituent parts of the parent body, we have not been merged. It is also possible to say that as long as we have a voice in policy making by the parent body, we have become a constituent part and have therefore merged. Between these two extremes, any association or relationship is merger. It must, therefore, be' contended that when Singapore has 15 representatives in a House of about 100 Members who decide common policy, Singapore is part of the Federation and there is true merger.

The debate in the last few days has brought up the fact that the Barisan Sosialis, having failed to overthrow the Government in their abortive plot after the Anson by-election and having made a series of blunders in miscalculating the speed of the merger negotiations, are now in an untenable position - that they do not want merger and yet dare not say so. We cannot believe that the Barisan Sosialis do not know that they have made a blunder. What we know is that they have not the political honesty to admit it. They prefer to render lip service to the request for merger, but to make their demands such that no merger will be possible. These are worn-out tactics by now, and they do ring hollow in our ears.

The Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen do not or will not face the fact but keep on repeating such catch-phrases as "full merger or no merger", or "automatic citizenship", "second-class citizens", and so on, without realising their true meanings and implications. So much more is it a pity, because even other Opposition Members credit them with some intelligence. They accuse the Government of perpetrating a sell-out when all along the Government has tried to work honesty for the benefit of the majority of the people. It may be true that certain people, who are political risks, may find that with merger the liberties which they now enjoy under the benevolent P.A.P. Government will be drastically curtailed, but surely the aspirations of the people should not be held up because of these few.

Sir, I oppose the amendment to the motion because it is unrealistic at this stage to demand of the Federation the type of merger proposed by the Barisan Sosialis. It is also unrealistic in view of Singapore's special position which I mentioned earlier, and of the education and labour policies as well as our peculiar enterpot economy, our social services and our attempts at industrial development for the provision of more jobs for our people. I must emphasise that with the merger as proposed by the P.A.P. Government, every Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy the same rights and privileges that he now enjoys. In addition, he will be able to stand for election in Singapore to be a Member of the Federal Parliament. Every Singapore citizen will be able to exercise his vote, to determine as to who should be his representative in the Federal Parliament. With the P.A.P. merger. Federation policies on education and labour will not affect us. We will continue to strive for industrial peace-with justice and to create a more just and equal society. The policy of equal treatment for the four language streams of education will carry on. There will still be all the opportunities for parents to send their children to Chinese, Tamil, Malay or English schools of their choice. Chinese education will continue to flourish with the continuance of Chinese as the medium of instruction in our secondary and higher educational, institutions. Those who are educated in Malay, Chinese or Tamil would be given opportunities for employment in the public services, and our public services will not be affected by the Federation 4:1 ratio policy.

7.37 p.m.

Mr Wong Soon Fong (Toa Payoh): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, we the Barisan Sosialis have proposed this amendment through the Member for Queenstown. In the debate these few days we have clearly proved that our amendment is justified. This is particularly true when the Ministers and P.A.P. Assemblymen could not answer the questions raised by us. It clearly shows that the merger proposed by the leadership of the P.A.P. is a kind of phoney merger, and our amendment is proof of it. The discredited leadership of the P.A.P. should rise up to face the people and seek a new mandate from them, so that the people could make a new decision.

We have heard the Minister for National Development say just now that we, the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen, contested the 1959 general elections in the name of the P.A.P. That is quite true. But in those days we were of the opinion that the P.A.P. principles met with the wishes of the people, and therefore the people elected the P.A.P. to form the government. My colleague, the Member for Havelock, has replied on this point, and you cannot say that we now oppose the principles of the P.A.P. But the leadership of the P.A.P. have forgotten their own promises made in 1959. We have been trying to seek the true principles but the ruling clique of the P.A.P. do not want to discuss all these questions in a democratic way. Instead they have resorted to dictatorial ways, and that is why today 13 of us are sitting here under the style of "Barisan Sosialis". We have not betrayed any election promises made in 1959. We the Barisan Sosialis are ready to face the people at any time any place, if the P.A.P. Assemblymen are as honest and courageous as we are, then they should be prepared to face the people at any time in order to let the people make a new decision.

The question of merger is a national issue. It can also be said to have a very important bearing on the people of Singapore as well as the people in the Federation of Malaya. It cannot be made an issue pertaining to the P.A.P. alone. It is not a partisan issue peculiar to any Party or group of persons. It is not an issue which can be resolved by only a group of people or a political Party alone. Our view is this. Merger between the two territories of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya should be decided by the people in both territories, and it should not be carried out in the manner that the Prime Minister has done - by secretly going to the Federation to negotiate and to try to get his type of merger without consulting the people of Singapore, and then come back to tell the people that merger is now in view. The people of Singapore, especially the political Parties and all trade unionists, have given many constructive views on this question. Our Prime Minister has entirely ignored all these views and opinions. From this, we can come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is dictatorial and is not democratic in his way of dealing with the problem of merger.

The reason for merger between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore is that in the past the two territories were under the rule of colonialists. They ruled over these two territories with a divide and rule policy, as a result of which the two territories are divided. That is why today we demand the reunification of the two territories and seek a reunification of the people of these two territories. Therefore, in this respect this demand should meet with the wishes of the people in these two territories. The true way to achieve merger should be on an equal, just and reasonable basis. It should meet with the true wishes and interests of the two territories and with the true wishes of the people of the two territories. But our Prime Minister has not done so. Whenever he managed to have some kind of deal with the Federation Government, he would return to Singapore and make use of the radio and the newspapers to talk about his phoney merger. This undemocratic way of handling this matter cannot be allowed by, the people of Singapore.

Since the Prime Minister put forward this phoney merger proposal, the people of Singapore have clearly seen through what this merger means. The eyes of the people are bright and discerning. The people have come to know clearly the kind of merger that is proposed by the Prime Minister. In order to resuscitate their moribund and declining political fortunes and position, our sophisticated Prime Minister and several of his colleagues have continued to issue all kinds of saying and pretexts. But from these declarations and speeches, the people can still see that they are contradicting themselves.

The Minister for Finance has said in this Assembly during the present series of sittings that the Member for Queens-town has raised this point, namely, that under Article 22 of the Federation Constitution, the constitutional points with regard to the future status and political rights of the people can be determined. The Minister for Finance says that this is wrong. He also says that the Prime Minister of the Federation does not like to accept the citizens of Singapore because there are Communists in Singapore. This is the reason given by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. We regret the way he talked and argued. According to information given by Intelligence to the Prime Minister, there are only about 300 Communists in Singapore. But under the present arrangements for merger, there will be about 320,000 citizens of Singapore who will not have any right to apply for Federal citizenship. This argument does not hold water. It is groundless.

We have also heard from the Minister for Health and Law during this present series of sittings in this Assembly. He quoted from documents and law books to show that, according to the present Federation law, the citizens of Singapore cannot automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya on Merger Day. Is this not in conflict with what the Minister for Finance has stated?

Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Culture said in this House that we were not sincere in asking for automatic conversion of citizens of Singapore to Federal citizens on Merger Day. He said that this request would not be acceptable to the Federation Government. At the same time, he criticised us for bringing up this amendment. He further said that because of this we the Barisan Sosialis are a communal Party. He even accused us of being birds of the same feather with the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party in the Federation. What is his motive for making such an accusation against us?

Just now the Member for Havelock has refuted him in a very concrete way. The object of the Minister is merely to confuse the true nature of our amendment. He only wants to continue to bamboozle the people of Singapore. At the same time, he hopes that the people of Singapore will not continue to seek their basic democratic rights. We the Barisan Sosialis have proposed a genuine merger of the two territories. This is based on the equality of rights of the people of the two territories. It is to achieve a united nation so that the people can share a common political life. When this kind of merger is achieved, they can enjoy the same equal rights.

Why did the Minister for Culture want to level criticisms against us? His argument cannot be accepted by anyone. His accusation only reflects the fact that he himself is communalistic. Mr Deputy Speaker, we want to tell the Minister for Culture that since the Barisan Sosialis' inception up till now, our stand, views and policies have all along be clear-cut. Just now my colleague has read out our stand. So it is not necessary for me to reiterate it. We are true socialists. We are working along the true path towards the building of a socialist country. We are not like the leadership of the P.A.P. In name, they claim to be Left-wing socialists, but, in fact, they are compromising with opportunistic Right-wing elements.

On the question of merger between the two territories, we have noted clearly that this is actually a phoney merger proposed by the P.A.P. But our Prime Minister insists on telling the people that it is a true merger. Our very clever Prime Minister is trying to sell dog's meat by showing a lamb's head when he tells the people that this is a true merger. But I want to tell the Prime Minister that the people of Singapore have bright discerning eyes. The people have gone through many actual experiences. Therefore, they are now able to see what is right and what is wrong, and to make out what is true merger and what is phoney merger. Last Friday, when the Member for Nee Soon was exposing the P.A.P. phoney merger in this House, he pointed out that the leadership of the P.A.P. had deviated from its Left-wing socialist stand. But our clever Prime Minister, our cunning Prime Minister, produced on that day correspondence between himself and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. But we know very well that the contents were out of date when he produced them. The contents related to nationality, citizenship and representation to the Federal Parliament. The Tunku had clearly given his answer to these few points at the Singapore Airport. Therefore, when the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya left for London, the Prime Minister of Singapore produced those letters. What was his motive? On Saturday there was no sitting of this House. Perhaps his intention was to have headlines spread over the newspaper's front page.

About Article 22 of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Mr Rajaratnam.