MERGER (SINGAPORE/FEDERATION OF MALAYA (White Paper)

2.32 p.m.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [21st November, 1961] to Question [20th November, 1961],

"That, whereas it has always been the avowed objective of all nationalists of Malaya to achieve the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya and to remove the artificial division created by the British by their policy of "divide and rule", this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.".-(The Minister for Labour-Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim).

Which Amendment was,

'To leave out from "a" in the second last line to the end and insert:

"genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day".'-(Dr Lee Siew Choh).

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

2.34 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the adjournment was taken last night, I was on the question of citizenship and Singapore citizens. To put the matter in its proper perspective, perhaps you might allow me to go into the question of Singapore citizenship and how Singapore citizenship is acquired, because one of the difficulties that the people of Singapore are facing over the question of merger is what will happen to them as Singapore citizens when these so-called constitutional arrangements have been effected. It is not only an important constitutional issue, but even more important from the public point of view, it seems to be an emotional issue. Therefore, it is only fair that this question is completely and fully ventilated in this Assembly.

As I understand Singapore citizenship. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is possible to acquire it under four heads:

(1) You become a Singapore citizen by birth;

(2) You become a Singapore citizen by descent;

(3) You become a Singapore citizen by registration; and

(4) You become a Singapore citizen by naturalization.

Once a person has acquired Singapore citizenship under any of these categories, he is a Singapore citizen, and so far as he is concerned and so long as he remains a Singapore citizen, he has absolutely equal rights. Singapore citizens all have absolutely equal rights one with the other. There is absolutely no question that there is any difference between a Singapore citizen by birth and a Singapore citizen by registration, descent, or naturalization. There is only one difference between these four categories of citizens. First, Mr Speaker. Sir, I would like to emphasize the word "categories" of citizens and not "classes" of citizens. They are not "classes" of citizens, but "categories" of citizens, depending on the manner in which citizenship is acquired. Having acquired it, they are equal and the same in the eyes of the law, constitutionally or otherwise. But there is one important distinction between a citizen by birth and a citizen by descent on the one hand, and a citizen by registration and a citizen by naturalization on the other. Whereas it would be impossible for the Government to deprive a citizen by birth or by descent of his citizenship, it would be possible for the Government to deprive a citizen by naturalization or by registration if the citizen in these latter categories should behave himself in a manner contrary to the interests of the State. That is not a provision peculiar to Singapore. It is a provision which every civilised country has in its laws, because it is only right that when a person is given the privilege of becoming a citizen of a State, he should continue to behave in a manner which will not be to the detriment of the State. Therefore, quite rightly, every civilised State has reserved unto itself the right to deprive a citizen by naturalization or by registration of his citizenship if he should misbehave. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, does not make him a second-class citizen nor a third-class citizen. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a Singapore citizen by registration, having been born in the Federation. I do not, for one moment, consider myself a second-class citizen. My status in the eyes of the law and so far as my rights are concerned are absolutely co-equal with those of a person born in Singapore or of a person whose parent was a Singapore citizen and who was born outside Singapore.

Having sketched that, Mr Speaker, then the question arises whether amongst Singapore citizens themselves there is inequality. There is absolutely no inequality. If anybody in Singapore is putting out the proposition that although there are different categories of citizens by virtue of the fact that there are different categories of citizenship, therefore, there are different classes of citizenship, that is an absolute lie calculated to do a great deal of emotional harm, and the motives behind putting out such a proposition cannot be strictly honourable.

When these constitutional arrangements go through, Singapore citizens will remain Singapore citizens, and there can be no question that I am going to be a second class citizen. I am absolutely convinced of that. My category is the same as the category of citizens who were born in China or India or Ceylon or any other part of the world, and who, by virtue of adequate residence in Singapore, has acquired citizenship by registration. What happens to me and to people like me who were not born in the Federation but outside the Federation, say, in China, or India or Ceylon or any other part of the world, is this - that we will all remain Singapore citizens and exercise our rights as Singapore citizens in any constitutional arrangements that will have been arrived at between the Federation Government and ourselves. What will then be the net result so far as Singapore citizenship is concerned after -

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Merger.

Mr Rajah: - merger, as the Minister for Finance likes to call it? Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the position, it will be this, that when the State Assembly elections are conducted, I will be allowed a vote; and when the Federal elections are conducted - and for that purpose, I take it, if it is going to be 15 seats, the island of Singapore will be divided into 15 electoral divisions, or wards as the case may be - and if I should so desire, I can offer myself for election. What is more, I can vote for myself, if I choose to stand in the ward where my name appears on the register. Where then does the proposition propounded by the Barisan Sosialis come in about second-class citizenship? If the proposition is that a Singapore citizen becomes a second-class citizen by virtue of the fact that he is not allowed to vote in the Federation or to stand for election in the Federation, and if that and that only is the reason for stating the proposition that Singapore citizens are second-class citizens, then might I suggest to the Barisan Sosialis, if they look at it from the Federation point of view, that a Federal citizen could equally say then that because he is not allowed to stand for election in Singapore or to vote in Singapore, he himself is a second-class citizen. The proposition is too absurd to be contemplated. Why then do we labour the point that the Singapore citizen is inferior to the Federal citizen? Can it be that my friend, the Member for Queenstown, has a complex about himself? Has he a complex that a Singapore citizen is inferior to a Federal citizen? Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself have no such complex. I feel that I am equal to the Federal citizen, if not superior. And why should I not feel it if I am so inclined to feel it? I do not think the Federation Prime Minister is going to object to my thinking that I am superior and that Singapore citizenship is superior to Federal citizenship. It is a matter of opinion and I am entitled to mine. But if the Barisan Sosialis propounds as a fact that Singapore citizenship is inferior to Federal citizenship, that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not true. It is not correct.

I was rung up this morning by a number of people. They said, "We were very glad you clarified this point because we were in doubt." A further point was asked of me: can a Singapore citizen sit in the Federal Parliament? I said, "Surely you have read the White Paper; surely it has all been explained." It is amazing, Mr Speaker, Sir, the amount of ignorance there is in Singapore about these matters, and as a result of this ignorance, a lot of misunderstandings are current. I said, "Of course, if you feel so inclined, if you wish to stand for election to the Federal Parliament, you will be entitled to do so. There is nothing in the White Paper which I can see which goes against it. In fact, if I remember rightly, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an express statement to that effect. In paragraph 14, page 4 of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961, it reads:

'Singapore citizens will vote in Singapore for their representatives to the new Federation Parliament and the citizens of the present Federation of Malaya will vote in the present Federation for their representatives to the same new Federation Parliament.' From that paragraph it seems to me obvious that Singapore citizens will vote and can stand in Singapore in respect of the 15 constituencies which will send their representatives to the Federal Parliament. Even from that point of view, there is no question of a second-class citizenship.

A further question was raised whether the words "Federal national" have been introduced into these proceedings with a view to confusing the issues and that a Federal national is not really a Federal national; he might be a British subject, and, therefore, being a British subject it is something derogatory. I think it was the Member for Anson who took the view that a Federal national really equates to a British subject. Mr Speaker, Sir, all that the White Paper says is this. A Singapore citizen and a Federal citizen will both become Federal nationals. At the moment the phrase "Federal national" is not known to the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. I take it that it will be necessary to amend the Constitution to give the phrase a place in the statute. I take it that it will be done. Once that is done, then the term "Federal national" has a constitutional significance, and under the Federation Constitution, a Federal national will be a Commonwealth citizen and not a British subject. The British are wise people. They amended their British Nationality Laws - I think it was in 1947 or 1948; I cannot remember the exact date - because, in their wisdom, they knew that the term "British subject" was not viewed with favour by people in the Dominions, and therefore they devised an arrangement under their British Nationality Laws and coined a new phrase "Commonwealth citizen". So that a Federal national will become a Commonwealth citizen. Now a Commonwealth citizen will have the status of a British subject. Therefore, the Member for Anson argued that if he has the status of a British subject, he is then a British subject. With great respect to the Member for Anson - he is my senior in many ways - I beg to disagree with him. Having the status of a British subject does not necessarily mean that you are a British subject. What it means is this, that if you should happen to be in Great Britain, then having the status of a British subject would entitle you to all the privileges that a British subject would enjoy in the British Isles. That is all it means, Mr Speaker, Sir.

If I may make my point clearer and bring it home to the Member for Anson. Recently we have read in the papers that Japanese nationals will be given the status of South Africans in South Africa when they are in South Africa. I ask the Member for Anson, does he, in all seriousness, advance the argument that because of this that Japanese nationals will become south African subjects? I think the Japanese people will be the first to disavow it. What it merely means is this. If Japanese nationals have been given by the South African Government in their wisdom the status of South Africans in South Africa, it merely means that they can ride with the whites in their buses; and if the Japanese want it that way, they are welcome to it. Why should we object?

I also understand from the papers that the People's Republic of China has applied for that status. Both the extreme Right and the extreme Left in Asia want the status of South Africans, and if they want it, Mr Speaker, Sir, who are we to say that it is a derogatory status? But the curious position is this. We have heard a lot about the Afro-Asian conferences. It is a bit peculiar when two nations in Asia - one on the extreme Right and the other on the extreme Left - should seek the status of South Africans. So it is difficult to know where we are in this modern world. The extreme Right and the extreme Left want to ride in the same bus as a South African, but they do not want to ride with their black brothers. So when we talk about Socialism and the extreme Right, I, as one who does not subscribe to any such particular political philosophy, am a bit confused. But that is only by the way.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not say that a Singapore citizen is a second-class citizen. Let us not even go one better and say third-class citizens. This category was introduced yesterday. The point was made that a Federal citizen is a first-class citizen, a Singapore citizen is a second-class citizen. Yesterday the point was made that there are third-class citizens. The point and purpose of that statement was to draw a difference between Singapore citizens by birth and by registration. According to some Members of the Barisan Sosialis, it seems that citizens by registration are third-class citizens, and in that category is your humble servant. I do not accept that statement. It is not true. It is not right. I would like Members of the Barisan Sosialis to quote chapter and verse because I am personally vitally interested in that issue, because if any constitutional arrangement arrived at by the Hon, the Prime Minister with the Federation Prime Minister were to make me into a third-class citizen, I would be the first to object to it.

An hon. Member: You have an alliance with the P.A.P.!

Mr David Marshall (Anson): We are no citizens at all in the Federation.

Mr Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish for elucidation, all they have to do is to stand up and I am sure the Member for Farrer Park will oblige.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I have made any mis-statements on the law, if I have misconceived the position, if I have made any wrong statements to this House, if any Member, either on the Front Benches or on the Back Benches on the Government side or on the Front Benches or on the Back Benches on the Opposition side, says I am talking nonsense and I am wrong in any of my statements, I am quite prepared to give way so that the House will be given a full explanation, of the true factual and legal position resulting from these constitutional arrangements. I await that, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I will gladly resume my seat and give them the Floor.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to stay very much longer on the Floor. There are other important issues to be discussed and I hope I am confining myself strictly to the amendment. I will have something more to say when the main motion is debated.

On the adjournment yesterday, I was fumbling around with the Wartawan to find a statement made by Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, to the effect that he and his Party were willing to go to the people of Singapore to explain to them the whole position and obtain their support. Now that is a tall statement for anyone to make. For one person to say that he can convince the people of Singapore, I envy him if he can do that. But if he exercises that power in the right direction, he will do a power of good for this country and I have every confidence that his intention is to do a power of good to this country. But to put the record clear and right, let me quote him:

'We are fully aware of the difficulties that face us in our struggle for Malayan unity. As a result of colonial rule, differences of race and religion have been emphasised and much work will be needed to repair the damage done by colonialism. However, we declare that if the representatives of the people of the Federation are agreeable to do the same-'

this is the place, Mr Speaker, Sir:

'we will pledge ourselves to exert whole-heartedly our influence to win the people of Singapore to accept full and complete merger forthwith, that is, with Singapore as the twelfth State of the Federation and with Singapore citizens automatically becoming Malayan citizens with proportional representation in the Federation Parliament. Let the Government of the Federation of Malaya tell us if it is prepared to persuade the people of the Federation to accept the people of Singapore in a full and complete merger before 1963.'

Now let us examine the psychological situation against which such a statement is made.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry to intervene at this stage. I thought the Member was going on with the question of citizenship. Would the speaker agree - I have not got the documents with me but I have quoted them - that in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya there is an express provision that only Federal citizens may sit both in the House and in the Senate, and in the White Paper it is perfectly consistent with our voting for Federal citizens who will then represent us? Secondly, would the Member agree that all Commonwealth citizens under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1948, are in fact British nationals?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret the Member for Anson was not listening to me carefully. You see, Sir, how difficult it is to get a point across. How can the people in the coffee-shops understand anything when the Member for Anson, who is himself a trained lawyer, and I myself - I hope that I can say that I am a trained lawyer - used to the use of words, are trying to put words together in a manner which people will understand? If I cannot get myself across to him and he cannot get himself across to me, we can see how difficult the position of the man in the coffee-shop is. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already told the House that at the moment the phrase "Federal national" is not known to the Federal Constitution - at least I have not seen it in the Federal Constitution. As this is a phrase coined as a result of these constitutional arrangements, it will therefore become necessary - I have told the House; I may be wrong -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Surely it must be so.

Mr Rajah: - it will become necessary to amend the Federal Constitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson must know all this. Let us not look at the Federal Constitution as something which is going to be static. It follows the will of the people. No constitution is static. It moves with the will of the people, and if the will of the people is that this Constitution is to be amended, it will be amended; and it will be amended to this effect, that wherever the phrase "Federal citizen" appears, the phrase "Federal national" shall be substituted. That is only my suggestion. They might amend it in some other way. But certainly the Constitution must be amended to carry with it the conception of a Federal national and to give it statutory effect and legal concept. That must be done. I cannot, therefore, understand the Member for Anson saying that because the Constitution now does not have the phrase "Federal national", how can Singapore citizens sit in the Federal Assembly? If this Constitution is amended to bring in the phrase "Federal national", and because a Singapore citizen is a Federal national, therefore, by virtue of the fact that he is a Federal national, he is entitled to sit in the Federal Parliament. Surely it is a simple proposition. I would have thought that the Member for Anson would have been the first to understand it. If he cannot understand it, how much more difficult it is going to be for persons in the coffee-shops to understand it. And I beg of the Government, if they are serious in these constitutional arrangements - and they are of vital importance to the country - that they put this across to the people. They do not understand it, Mr Speaker. If the Member for Anson cannot understand it -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He does not want to!

Mr Rajah: Does not want to? No, I do not say that. How can that be? He is a patriot.

The Prime Minister: Hear hear!

Mr David Marshall: Point of elucidation, Mr Speaker.

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am very much obliged. Sir, this is very important. Is the speaker, in fact, stating -

Mr Speaker: Member.

Mr David Marshall: I beg your pardon. Is the Member, in fact, stating that he is satisfied that wherever the words "Federal citizen" appear in the Federal Constitution, the words "Federal national" will be substituted? Because if that is so, it makes a complete change in my own stand. I am sorry I am stupid. But if I am given an assurance that wherever in the Federal Constitution the words "Federal national" appear, sections 8, 10, 82, wherever the words "Federal citizen" appear, the words "Federal national" will be substituted, I will vote for the White Paper.

Mr Rajah: I am so glad we have now clarified the position because I am entirely with the Member for Anson. If the Constitution is not going to be amended to make me a Federal National, co-equal with a Federal citizen for purposes of sitting in the Federal Parliament, then I will certainly vote against the White Paper. Why should I vote for it? It is on that understanding and on that basis that I am supporting the White Paper. And let me tell the Member for Anson through you, Sir, that if under this Constitution there are certain things which are pertinent to the rights of man, then I sincerely hope that the rights of man in the Federation and in Singapore will be co-equal. I do sincerely hope that.

The Prime Minister: That is so.

Mr Rajah: That must be so. Otherwise, there can be no constitutional arrangements. There can be no equality of status. I am supporting this entirely on that basis - that the rights of man in Singapore and the rights of man in the Federation co-equate and are co-equal, and interchangeable. The Federal citizen can come here and the Singapore citizen can go there. But they cannot go into each other's territory for purposes of exercising the vote. That is the constitutional arrangement for the time being. When the psychology of the two territories changes, then possibly there need not be a Federal citizen and a Singapore citizen. But that is not possible now. Let us hope it will be within our lifetime anyway.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am almost finished, but there are one or two points I would like to stress to the House.

Sir, there is one phrase used by the Member for Upper Serangoon.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): He is not here.

Mr Rajah: The Member for Upper Serangoon is not here. He is such an important adjunct in the Barisan Sosialis system of things that I would have liked him to be here in order to pose this problem to him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when he was speaking yesterday in this House, he said this, "The people of Singapore like socialism." There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is the fashion nowadays to be a socialist. And who does not want to be in the fashion, whether to be in a bush jacket, without a tie, or with a tie? The three classes are well represented here, Mr Speaker.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Three classes of socialists.

Mr Rajah: By that I do not mean three classes of citizens. They are still co-equal, I hope.

He went on to say what struck me as something very interesting - "especially for the Chinese." Mr Speaker, this is the sort of thing that really gets me down. What is this brief "especially for the Chinese"? The Member for Thomson is not a Chinese. The Member for Bukit Timah is not a Chinese.

Mr Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Rajah: I beg your pardon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is not a Chinese. Mr Devan Nair is not a Chinese.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Byrne is not a Chinese.

Mr Rajah: Mr Byrne is not a Chinese.

An hon. Member: The Minister for Law!

Mr Rajah: The Minister for Law is not a Chinese.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The Minister for Culture.

Mr Rajah: The Minister for Culture, one of the ablest spokesmen, rather more able than the Member for Thomson, is not a Chinese. The Vice-Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis is not a Chinese.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): The Member for Anson.

Mr Rajah: Yes, he is not a Chinese. My Chinese friends, I hope, will forgive me if I tell them that some of the ablest spokesmen for socialism in Malaya are non-Chinese.

The Prime Minister: Not for Communism, you know.

Mr Rajah: Sir, why then do we draw this red herring - "especially for the Chinese"? What does the Member for Upper Serangoon mean by that? If you are a socialist, you are a socialist.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr Rajah: And I thought that one of the basic tenets of socialism is that once you are a true socialist, you cease to be a Chinese or an Indian. You are an internationalist.

The Prime Minister: No, that is not true after the 22nd Congress.

Mr Rajah: I do not know about this Congress. My theory is that way back one of the basic tenets of socialism is the international creed. Once you are a socialist, you have no race, no creed, no country. Why talk about the Chinese? Mr Speaker, Sir, a socialist is not a chauvinist. And if a socialist talks like a chauvinist, what does one make of him?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is just one last thing I wish to state. The proposals before the House on the question of merger and the other allied motions that are being discussed are in the nature of temporary measures. They have not reached any form of finality. It is just an immediate step to something which we want in the future. With that intent and purpose, that seems to be the position. I give notice now that when the proper time comes, Mr Speaker, I shall move an amendment to item 3 on the Order Paper, under the name of the Hon, the Prime Minister - White Paper on Reunification of Singapore and Federation of Malaya:

'That this House, accepts the heads of agreement set out in'

Mr David Marshall: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are discussing the amendment. Surely we cannot at this stage, before the amendment is passed, deal with item 3?

Mr Speaker: Order. I understood the Member for Farrer Park just to indicate what he is going to do. Of course, he will not be able to discuss his amendment now.

Mr Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is exactly my intention. I give notice now, after which I shall sit down.

'...agreed to between the Governments of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories.'

The amendment which I intend to propose, Mr Speaker, will be this:

After the word "That", to insert:

"as an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger,"

'this House accepts the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 agreed to between the Governments of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories.'

The point and purpose of the amendment, Mr Speaker, is to throw the debate into proper focus.

3.09 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish first to address myself to the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown. There are two parts to his amendment. First, that Singapore should merge with the Federation of Malaya as the twelfth State; second, that all Singapore citizens should automatically become Federation citizens.

May I first deal with the first limb of the amendment - that Singapore should be the twelfth State of the Federation? Let me refer him to a joint statement issued on 16th September this year by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and myself. That statement said:

'The two Prime Ministers are satisfied that all legitimate local and special interests of the people in the two territories can and will be safeguarded with the merger of Singapore as a State within the Federation.' I want to emphasise these words, Sir - "merger of Singapore as a State within the Federation". These are not casual words uttered at Press Conferences or in conversations. These are words carefully chosen after scrutiny by officials of both sides. They carry with them the full import of their ordinary meaning. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Singapore will be the twelfth State of the new Federation. I do not know whether there is any special virtue in being the 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th State, but I can assure hon. Members that if it is the number 13 that they are against, perhaps for some unhappy connotation of the Barisan Sosialis and so on, I shall ensure that we shall take pride of place before the Borneo territories.

There has been considerable play over the word "merger". Members of the Opposition have for various reasons alleged that the proposals contained in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 do not constitute a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. There was some talk of complete merger like Penang and Malacca. The Barisan Sosialis talked of it. Others talked of absolute merger, whatever that may mean. It is useful to note the title of the Memorandum which contains the Heads of Agreement agreed to between the Prime Minister of the Federation and ourselves. It reads:

'MEMORANDUM SETTING OUT HEADS OF AGREEMENT FOR A MERGER BETWEEN THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA AND SINGAPORE'.

Not what I said, Sir, but what the Tunku and I jointly said. The joint statement issued in London at the end of the Tunku's first series of discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - I am quoting now from the official communique - says:

'The Minister [U.K. and Federation of Malaya Ministers] took note with satisfaction of the heads of agreement recently negotiated between the Governments of Malaya and Singapore for merging Singapore with the Federation.'

Three Ministers of the Federation of Malaya Government - the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Finance Minister - and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom together with the Secretaries of State, for Commonwealth Relations, for the Colonies, and for Defence - one Scots man and three Englishmen - have described these heads of agreement as merging Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. Sir, I did not take the liberty of bringing in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary into this Chamber, but I trust Members will believe me when I say that my secretary has accurately copied the definition of "merger" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. "Merger", it says, means "combine or to merge." And the word "merge" is defined as "to cause something to lose its own character or identity in something else."

Mr David Marshall: Singapore citizenship.

The Prime Minister: That is right. They shall both lose their identity for Pan-Malayan purpose as nationals of the new Federation. It is no use shaking heads. I have documents written from the pen with green ink of the former Chief Minister of Singapore who referred to "nationals" of Singapore. We learned from him, Sir, as we learn from everybody else.

Sir, it is part of the problems of the Communists that they have to find metaphysical arguments to explain why a merger is not a merger. They have agreed to merger on principle. For years, since 1945, they have agreed with us on this in their written documents, which we have published from time to time and will republish. But they cannot afford to admit that the heads of agreement contained in this Command Paper are a merger without, at the same time, having to accept them and having to land themselves in an impossible position. For the furtherance of the Communist cause, it would be an impossible position. But not for the furtherance of the socialist democratic cause.

Members on the other side, particularly Members of the Barisan Sosialis, have termed these conditions as the P.A.P. type of merger. Merger requires two parties to an agreement. The proposals contained in this White Paper are no more the P.A.P. type than the Tunku's type of merger. If it were all purely P.A.P., there would have been a different White Paper. If it were all purely Tunku, there would also have been a very different White Paper. But this White Paper represents the widest consensus of opinion after thorough and frank discussions. It represents how we believe merger can be achieved with the least possible upset for either side. I have waded through 12 days of this merger debate and I have not heard anybody nor read anybody having the temerity to call this the Tunku type of merger and then set out to tear it to pieces.

Mr David Marshall: He is not responsible to us.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Yes, Sir, how kind, courteous, correct and proper! But may I suggest that when they talk of feudalistic leaders and so on, obviously they are not inhibited by these considerations in this House or outside? I will say that whatever the follies and the errors of the Barisan Sosialis, they not understand the realities of power.

Sir, the P.A.P. Government is a democratic and tolerant Government. More important, the Federation Government is also a democratic and tolerant Government. But more important from the Communist point of view, the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist friends understand that the P.A.P. Government has no Congo-seasoned troops to deal with any emergency which they can create. But the Federation Government has. We have only got 817 soldiers in the S.I.R. to back our will. And from the point of view of Leninist revolution,, it is an easy Government to deal with. There are only 817 soldiers under the joint control of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the U.K. Commission.

Sir, I had occasion to describe the Member for Nee Soon, as one of the most intelligent of the Barisan Sosialis Members -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: One of the brightest Barisan stars.

The Prime Minister: He is one of the brightest stars. He showed his brightness when he called the Tunku in this Chamber "a statesman". Sir, the smiling, friendly Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya is what the Malays call him, "Papa Kemerdekaan". The Member for Nee Soon obviously understands that the Tunku has sufficient battalions of troops and jungle bashing policemen to ensure that the people of Malaya can afford to relax, smile and laugh, despite the venom and the frustration of the Communists.

Mr Khrushchev from time to time beats up Albania. Instead of taking on Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese, he takes up General Hoxha and the Albanians. He abuses, castigates and threatens Albania. But the whole world knows that what he wants to do is to abuse, castigate and threaten, not small Albania, but big China. Unfortunately for Mr Khrushchev, big China takes no notice of him. So like Mr Khrushchev, the Barisan Sosialis, I am sorry to hear, are still taking the old Russian line instead of getting modern and catching up with the Chinese line. The Barisan Sosialis have gone on abusing the proposals in Cmd. Paper 33 as the P.A.P. type merger. Sir, we do not mind being little Albania for brave men from the Barisan Sosialis - revolutionaries who talk fiercely of dealing with the gentle P.A.P. Government in Singapore, while they coo about statesmen in Kuala Lumpur, hoping thereby that the statesmen in Kuala Lumpur may be kind to them when the time for final settlement comes. But I wonder, Sir, whether merely a few sweet words with no supporting action to prove the sincerity of those words will deceive anybody, either in Singapore or in Kuala Lumpur. I can assure the Member for Queenstown, who I hope will inform the Member for Nee Soon, that the people in Kuala Lumpur are as knowledgeable of the ways of the Communists as the people in Singapore. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis may find this out to their great cost when the day for reckoning comes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You hope so?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I have expected Members of the Barisan Sosialis to spout the Communist line and say that whatever we propose is phoney. I even expected the Member for Anson to appeal in the name of decency, from human beings to human beings, not to corrupt the word "merger". He used the word "corrupt". A sacred word, said he. And it is. It is the political battle-cry that has kept the nationalists, the Communists, and all the other anti-colonialists together all these long years. He said that we corrupted that word when we described it, not I, Sir, the Tunku and I - "China" and "Albania" - described these heads of agreement for a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. But these are people who are not particularly precise with their use of words. The Barisan Sosialis - sometimes, but not always. Only sometimes is the Member for Anson not precise. Usually he is precise, Sir,I remember once we were entertained to an extremely scholarly treatise on the meaning of "on the advice of" or "after consultation with" in this Chamber. You will remember, Sir, that we were all refreshed in our knowledge of the law as a result of it. But when people get abusive, after they have lost the argument, they cease to be precise about the use of words.

Sir, I was disappointed to hear the Member for Farrer Park yesterday. He always tries to be precise in his words, lie spent a great deal of time yesterday arguing that the merger is not a merger. Sir, I cannot agree with him. It is not for me to tell him the meaning of meaning. He has no doubt read a scholarly book entitled, "The meaning of meaning". A great deal of clear thinking is necessary over this very simple subject. The book is so common and sensible as to become quite erudite. The Member for Farrer Park will recall, in "Alice through the looking glass", what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice. "When I use a word," said Humpty Dumpty in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice [That is me] "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master. That is all."

Sir, when I first started the study of law some years ago, the first few lessons I had to study were entitled, "Language and the Law". A brilliant teacher expounded to me with considerable lucidity the importance of being precise in the terms we use. These lessons, for the benefit of the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Anson, were later published. I think it was contemporaneously published in the Law Quarterly Review, "Language and the Law" - Glanville L. Williams, 1945, Law Q.R. The first lesson was devoted to explaining that any word can have three possible meanings. First, the speaker using the word intends it to mean. Second, what the meaning which the listener hearing it interprets it to mean. Third, the meaning commonly or widely accepted of the word by the majority of the people. Sir, let us take this simple word "peace". When Mr Khrushchev talks of "world peace", he means a situation in which his enemies in the Western world are slowly crumbling and decaying under the pressure of Soviet technological and economic advance and the pressure of Soviet propaganda, and with all the present neutral countries joining or slowly won over to his Communist camp. When President Kennedy hears Mr Khrushchev talk of "world peace", he understands peace differently. To him, peace means a situation where the capitalist world is naturally expanding by the process of free competition based on the inter-play of selfish individual motives, and a situation in which the Communists are contained in a tight concord of pro-Western and anti-Communist allies, and from time to time satellite countries like Hungary and Poland break out in successful revolts against the Russian tyrannical masters. So that a simple word like "peace", when Khrushchev says it, means to him one thing. Kennedy listening to it immediately thinks of another, and the majority of the people in the world understand it quite differently. When they think of peace, they want a situation where the diabolical and ruthless process of struggle and attrition between the Communist and the Capitalists worlds, where one system is intent on destroying the other, ceases, and human ingenuity and intelligence ate spent on fruitful research to make life happier and more meaningful for everyone without fear of war or the threat of war. So Mr Speaker, Sir, a simple word like "peace" can mean three different things:

1. To Mr Khrushchev when he uses it.

2. To Mr Kennedy when he hears Mr Khrushchev use it.

3. To the vast majority of mankind who understand it to mean what it ordinarily mean.

In the same way, Sir, as the Member for Farrer Park used the word "merger". When he said it, he meant merger like Penang or Malacca, Johore or Perak, or any one of the other 11 States in the Federation. Any variation from these terms giving Singapore more reserved powers and preserving the rights of Singapore citizens who are otherwise not qualified for citizenship under the laws of citizenship of the Federation and, at the same time, giving them automatically the nationality of the new Federation, he does not understand that to be merger.

Sir, when the Barisan Sosialis first talked of merger, they meant merger like Penang and Malacca. Since then they discovered what happened in Penang and Malacca, and they have added the second rider to their amendment about automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federal citizens. What the Barisan Sosialis, in fact, say, on behalf of their Communist backroom boys, is that they want merger like Penang and Malacca, and then just in case that should be acceptable to the Tunku and his Government, they ask for automatic conversion; and in case automatic conversion is also acceptable, they ask for something else; until finally, impossible terms are asked, the Tunku refuses, merger is frustrated, and the Communists carry on with Singapore, with the Singapore Government to deal with, in other words, only 817 S.I.R. soldiers under the joint control of the wicked colonialists and us.

Sir, when we used the word "merger", we did not intend to give any special meaning to it. We have used this word in the widely and commonly understood meaning of the word -

Mr David Marshall: Take-over bid!

The Prime Minister: Take over? By whom?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: I have been given the opportunity to elucidate. I am much obliged. This White Paper is a take over bid of Singapore equivalent to armistice terms on a defeated people whereby we are handed over hand and foot, bound with a little tube attached to our jugular vein in order to transfuse a quarter of our blood as we produce it. Those are the terms. There is not a single territory in the whole of -

Mr Speaker: Order. That is enough. I suppose the Member for Anson will have an opportunity of enlarging on that theme when we come to debate the main motion.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the Member for Anson does not know how grateful he must be to you. He went to Australia very recently, Sir. He has sterling qualities. He is a human being with a generosity of heart in a warm moment, and often I have been the beneficiary of that human warmth. But from time to time the warmth turns to heat and the thermostat control is lost and the whistle starts to blow. One such occasion was when he landed, I think, in Melbourne or Sydney -

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us not get into those details. The Member for Anson has talked about the jugular vein. Now the Prime Minister is talking about whistles and so on. Let us go back now to the amendment.

The Prime Minister: How true, Sir. The point is this. Never say these weighty things in haste, for whoever says it in haste may have cause to regret it at leisure. I am not qualified to give advice to those who are more senior than I am in the affairs of this world, but I do beseech the Member for Anson - and I do know what happened and so does he - do not say these reckless things. It brings about a chain of consequences which can be quite unpleasant. Sir, all I need say is this - I have not had the time to look up the library's Who's Who about the Prime Minister in the United Kingdom and the three Cabinet Ministers - but assuming that the Prime Minister is English, then I have three Englishmen and one Scotsman on my side, Sir. Although I may not be an Englishman, I am quite prepared to accept a Scotsman's definition of an English word -

Mr Rajah: Irish is better!

The Prime Minister: Irish? Better still, yes. Sir, may I draw the attention of Members of this House to paragraph 5 of the memorandum? These are operative provisions, Sir, apart from the title:

'The State of Singapore

Singapore will be a State within the Federation but on special conditions and with a larger measure of local autonomy than the other States forming the Federation.'

Sir, how can Singapore go into the Federation if it does not go in as a State? It must go in as a State. I do not know whether Brunei will beat us to it.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Surely.

Mr David Marshall: Could I refer him to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech - his Government's policy statement [Hansard, 31st October, 1961, Vol. 15, No. 1, col. 11]:

'The people must know that these interests cannot be protected in a complete merger as a 12th State like one of the other 11 States of the present Federation...'.

The Prime Minister: True, Sir, "like one of the 11 States of the Federation", because "like one of the 11 States of the Federation" means no reserved powers - [Interruption]. You go in as a twelfth -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it is correct if the Member for Anson will read the whole paragraph, because reading part of it out of context might - I do not know - be misleading. It is in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, col 11 - the whole of the paragraph.

Mr David Marshall: This is the paragraph, Sir, in col. 11, 31st October, 1961:

'The people must know that these interests cannot be protected in a complete merger as a 12th State like one of the other 11 States of the present Federation, for then automatically all these matters will be controlled by the Central Government and must follow the pattern of what happened in the 11th States of the present Federation of Malaya.'

The Prime Minister: That is the point, Sir. We are dealing with honest people like the Member for Anson. We will not mind telling him what is coming in the next chapter. But dealing with the backroom boys of the Barisan Sosialis, when we say we cannot have a twelfth State like the other 11 States, they say, "Ah, well, since we can't have that, then we ask for it," and they immediately put in an amendment - twelfth State and automatic conversion. We will give them twelfth State and they will know the reality of merger when the British flag comes down and the flag of the new Federation goes up and those operative provisions of the Schedule take effect.

In all fairness, I must mention the play that the Opposition has made of what the Tunku has said about close association and partnership. The Tunku understands the uneasiness of the Malays in the Federation with regard to the taking in of slightly over one million Chinese from Singapore, and absorbing them into the new Federation, and more particularly, because of the Press reports or organised misbehaviour by Chinese school students and Chinese workers from time to time, thereby making the rural Malays apprehensive of becoming engulfed and swamped by the addition of more Chinese from Singapore into the Federation of Malaya. This is nothing new. We have analysed it all in our 4th Anniversary Souvenir number, which I heard the Member for Queenstown react with gusto and endorse with great approval. Here are the honest unpleasant truths, Sir. So from time to time the Tunku has gone out of his way to stress the differences of the conditions of merger between Singapore and the Federation and those of the other States of the Federation. It is not for me to say why, but I would suggest that perhaps in this way Malay fears can be lessened or allayed. The words "close association between Singapore and the Federation". Sir, by whatever name, whether we call it "close association", "complete merger", "absolute merger", all must agree that the proposals contained in Paper Cmd. 33 mean that the British flag will be removed from Singapore, other than for the bases (where there will be special arrangements made), and we shall, in future, fly the flag of the new Federation, play the anthem of the new Federation, and display the symbols of the new Federation.

Singapore citizens wherever born, whether they were born in Singapore or China or India, will, as nationals of the new Federation, vote in Singapore for 15 representatives direct to the Central Parliament of the new Federation, just as the present Federation citizens will, also as nationals of the new Federation, vote in the present Federation for their representatives to the same Parliament; and there together, the representatives of the people from Singapore and the Federation will deliberate on policy, legislation and the welfare of all the people of the whole of the new Federation.

Sir, let me ask the Member for Farrer Park this metaphysical question, a very simple little exercise: At what point does close association become so close that it becomes complete merger? And conversely, when is complete merger made not so complete by the reservation to the State of large powers of education, labour, social welfare, health and other matters as proposed for Singapore, so as to make a merger a close association? These are witch words, Mr Speaker, Sir. Whatever anybody likes to call them, one thing is quite clear. The Communists understand these arrangements will thwart their plot. Their plot is to use Singapore as a base for a Communist ideological and propaganda offensive and, ultimately, as the Tunku has said, a military offensive against the Federation, and then we will get a genuine Communist merger, not of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, but of the Federation of Malaya into Singapore. As long as the merger proposals defeat their interests, we must expect them to oppose them although they may be in the interests of the people. So I say to the House, let us not use words as Humpty Dumpty uses them, to make them mean what Humpty Dumpty intends them to mean.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear! But let us use the commonly and widely accepted meaning of the word.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: I would ask Members to resort to the Oxford Dictionary and to Webster's Dictionary which are available in the Library of the House.

Sir, the Member for Hong Lim is in a singularly happy position of not being responsible. He says, "Ah, the Government is responsible." Then he says, "Ah, Barisan Sosialis, I am not getting mixed up with you. You do not protect students. I will become the leader and champion." Mind you, Sir, in the end, it all depends on who has got more trumps in his hand. We will come to that by and by.

An hon. Member: Joker!

The Prime Minister: Yes, or the joker. The Member for Hong Lim referred to the heads of agreement as making Singapore only an associate member of the Federation club. Let me draw attention - his attention in particular - to a few points on which I hope he will be able to enlighten us whether he persists in these allegations. First, all citizens of Singapore will automatically, as Federation nationals, vote 15 representatives direct to the Parliament of the new Federation. Sir, anyone of these 15 representatives, as nationals of the new Federation representing the people of the new Federation from Singapore in Parliament, can become a Minister of the Government of the new Federation. According to the Constitution of the new Federation, there is nothing to stop a Singapore citizen, by virtue of automatically becoming a national of the new Federation, from becoming the Prime Minister of the new Federation of Malaysia. This is so whether he is a Singapore citizen born in Singapore or a Singapore citizen born in China, India or elsewhere and who has acquired Singapore citizenship by registration. I am making statements which are advisely made. I do not make these things in my capacity as one of the signatories to this Command Paper. This is the natural interpretation to be spelt out of the Command Paper. I give the Member for Anson my categorical assurance that we shall see enshrined in it that he, a Singapore citizen born here - or even as malicious rumour has it that he was not born here but in Baghdad - has the right to be the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia.

Mr David Marshall: That is what you want.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. May I say, Sir, that I do not have to read the horoscope?

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): He can go to the United Nations now!

The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not have to read the horoscope for it to tell me that for a very long time, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia will be Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj. The Member for Nee Soon understands that and he is a very bright boy. Sir, from time to time, the Tunku has been talking about his heavy duties as Prime Minister and he talks of giving way to younger men. I have a feeling that he will be there for a long time, much to the unhappiness of the Communists, and when he finally retires -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: The Prime Minister is very good and I am appreciative. He has told us that there will be a change in the Constitution to enable Singapore citizens to be Ministers and to sit in Parliament. Perhaps he could complete that, Sir, and inform us whether the Member for Farrer Park was right in indicating that the new Constitution would substitute the words "Federal national" for "Federal citizen" wherever they appear.

The Prime Minister: That is so, Sir. Wherever the words "Federal citizen" appear, the words "Federal national" will be substituted, except in Part III which talks about the qualifications of how one becomes a Federal citizen, because that will have to remain for the Federation side and Singapore citizens will have to come in. I do not want to anticipate events, but I suggest that it will not be long when we will have to amend our Singapore citizenship laws to be on par with the Federation citizenship laws, otherwise one can become a Federal national easier via Singapore than via the Federation, and then a little bit of blackmarketing may go on. I would suggest that that must be so, and it is the logical significance if I may spell out these things from paragraph 14 of the White Paper:

'All Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship and automatically become nationals of the larger Federation. Citizens of the present Federation will similarly become nationals of the larger Federation. Nationals of the larger Federation, whether Singapore citizens or the Federation citizens, will as nationals have equal rights, carry the same passport, enjoy the same protection and be subject to the equal duties and responsibilities under the Constitution of the larger Federation. Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their State rights and privileges within Singapore [in other words, education, labour, and so on].'

Once in Parliament, there is nothing to stop any Member of this House who becomes a Member of Parliament of the Federation of Malaysia from becoming a Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or even Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia. Equal rights mean what it says there. Sir, I have heard great tributes paid by Members opposite to the capacity for frankness, the qualities of truth and statesmanship of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Sir, like little Albania, may I say that he signed this document, and I have every reason to believe that he will honour every word of it?

Mr David Marshall: Do you honour your own words?

The Prime Minister: Every word of it, Sir. I give my personal undertaking, for whatever it is worth, to the Member for Anson who keeps on telling the world that he feels very sorry every time he believes the P.A.P.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Sir, this has been most helpful and I appreciate your consent. The Federal Constitution gives constitutional protection, right of residence, right of work, right of freedom of association and freedom of speech in the Federation - only to Federal citizens. What does the Prime Minister really mean when he says - I do not know whether he means what he says - that a Singapore citizen who then becomes a Federal national will have all those constitutional rights in the Federation? It makes a lot of difference.

The Prime Minister: Sir, that is so. If the hon. Member had been following the Prime Minister of the Federation, he would have noticed that the Prime Minister of the Federation made the point that there would be no barrier between the mingling of Singapore citizens in the Federation and vice versa. He said - if I remember him on one occasion, reading reports from London - that he believed the migration is more up than down, but unfortunately my Minister in charge of social welfare tells me that it is more down than up. Whatever it is, that will continue; there will be rights of association, Pan-Malayan or Pan-Malaysian parties, trade unions, and so on. I do not like to raise hopes unduly, Sir, because I looked up a man who could read the stars and he told me that when the Tunku finally retires - according to his reading of the stars, and he also read the Red Star of the Barisan very carefully - Tun Abdul Razak is likely to be the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Sir, I am afraid this will not make the Communists very happy. But what to do? These are the unfortunate things of life with which they have to put up. There is nothing to stop - this is in a more practical vein - any Singapore Member (this is by way of example, of Singapore U.M.N.O. or even of the Singapore Alliance) from becoming a Minister of the New Government of the new Federation of Malaysia after merger. And in constitutional theory - I told this to the astrologer who looked up the stars and read the Barisan Red Star - I told him that there was nothing to stop the Member for Queenstown in conjunction with his Front friends in Penang, like Mr Lim Kean Siew and so on, from becoming the Prime Minister of the new Federation. Mind you, Sir, I think long before that happy event arrives, I have a feeling that there will be a lot of trouble between ambitious Front men - both in Singapore and in Penang.

Mr Speaker: Is that also from the stars?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is also read from the stars, Sir. And he has a five-pointed red star. The Member for Anson has a friend in Ipoh who has a six-pointed blue star - or black star; I am not sure. But I saw some blue ones painted in Kuala Lumpur where the P.P.P. stood for election. I do not know, but these are some of the anomalies that will have to be adjusted, otherwise people will get confused over the voting paper. You cannot put a five-pointed star or a six-pointed star in red or black. It would be terribly complicated when it comes to voting.

Mr David Marshall: There is only a one-pointed star.

The Prime Minister: These are problems to which I think they could do well to bend their minds. If they calculate a few steps ahead and be more careful', they might avoid - I think it is too late to avoid this round which has reached the zugzwang - a second round.

Sir, I want to ask the Member for Hong Lim this very simple question. Can he show me any instance of an associate member of a club having the right to become a member of the managing committee? Fifteen representatives from Singapore will be elected direct by the citizens of Singapore, as automatic Federal nationals, to the Parliament of the new Federation and will become members of the managing committee of the new Federation of Malaysia. Another question is this. Can he show me a club which allows an associate member to become the President or the General Secretary or the Secretary-General or an office-bearer of the club?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon) King Edward VII.

The Prime Minister: Sorry.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: The Medical Association.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: On a point of elucidation, Sir. The Alumni Association of King Edward VII College of Medicine.

The Prime Minister: What does it do?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Associate members may hold office. They are only asked to pay $1.

The Prime Minister: Then that is very good. Then what is the point? If I can pay only half my fees as an associate member and then I can be the President of the Association, I would rather pay half the fees. No wonder the Medical Faculty is in such a deplorable condition. The chaps are selling out the rights of the local-born to all the expatriates. What can we do, Sir? We try to save them from their own folly.

Sir, any one of the 15 Members of Parliament, and I repeat this, any one of the 15 from Singapore, be they born in Singapore, India, China, Indonesia or anywhere else in the world -

Mr Rajah: Timbuctoo!

The Prime Minister: - or Timbuctoo, can become Ministers, Deputy Prime Minister, or even Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaysia. I ask the Barisan Sosialis, is that a sell-out? We sell out Singapore in order to allow theoretically a Singapore man to be the Prime Minister of the new Federation of Malaysia. You sell yourself to yourself. What are we talking about?

Sir, as to the second part of the amendment, I have already referred to paragraph 14 of Command Paper 33 which is a clear and categorical statement agreed to by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. It says that:

'Nationals of the larger Federation, whether Singapore citizens or the Federation citizens, will as nationals have equal rights, carry the same passport, enjoy the same protection and be subject to the equal duties and responsibilities under the Constitution of the larger Federation.'

And every single word therein has been carefully weighed by the Attorney-General on that side and the State Advocate-General on this side. The only point where Singapore citizens are different from Federation citizens is that Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their State rights and privileges - education, labour, social welfare benefits. They are of different rates, Sir,If tomorrow we have complete merger, our social welfare allowances will have to go down by more than one-half to keep them in line with the rural areas of the Federation. And I do not think, in the minds of the ordinary people, that they will understand that merger brings economic stability, expansion and prosperity, if that is the immediate side effect.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): $90 million.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure the Member for Queenstown will find the Prime Minister accommodating if he wishes for elucidation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Giving $90 million away.

The Prime Minister: We are not giving $90 million away, Sir. There is no such thing. Nobody is giving $90 million away. This is magic conjured up by some bright spark; I do not know who. I do not think it is James Puthucheary.

Mr David Marshall: I am responsible, if you will permit, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am responsible, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the assurance of the Prime Minister talking to his cronies on the air, the cronies of the Press, when he informed them that we have come to an arrangement with the Federation whereby the Federation will receive one-quarter of our annual income, which works out to $98 million a year on the present Estimates. $98 million for nothing.

The Prime Minister: That is another instance, Sir, perhaps of saying words in haste and regretting at leisure. May I refer to the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and myself? This is my letter dated 11th November to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. The second last paragraph:

'Finally, we have agreed that Singapore would keep more than three-quarters of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities on education and labour, social welfare, health and all the other matters set out as state or concurrent responsibilities in the schedule annexed to our memorandum, and, be entitled to 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation.' Sir, may I very simply explain this? If one looks through the schedule, the State List - I am obliged to you, Sir, for having circulated it to Members. It was an oversight, and we should have put it out, but we assumed that Members had made themselves familiar with the Federation Constitution. That, anyway, is for all States. List I, in all the other States of the Federation, is what they call Federal List controlled by the Central Government. Sir, we are taking out of that List, from Federation to State control, very important items. In particular, Members will note items 13, 14, 15, and all the other concurrent items. Because of the complexities of budgeting procedure, it is a very complicated subject. I do not pretend to understand things which I do not understand. I leave it to the experts to work them out. But may I give a simple example? The one Ministry most affected, of course, is the Ministry of Home Affairs. My colleague, the Member in charge of Home Affairs, will have divested himself of a great deal of responsibility, like internal security, item No. 3 there. Defence - he is doing a little bit of it, S.I.R. and so on. External Affairs - I run a minor department to keep the Consular Corps happy, and from time to time insult the Portuguese Consulate by not sending them a Christmas card; that sort of thing, Sir. Well, my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs will have divested himself of nearly three-quarters of his responsibility - Police, $28 million, is it?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: $30 million.

The Prime Minister: Police, $30 million. He is not giving to the Federation. That chunk of the Budget will, from the day of merger, appear in the Central Parliament Budget, not the Singapore Budget. We will not present it anymore.

Mr David Marshall: Point of elucidation, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I have got the paper here of what he said, the 20th November, after those letters were exchanged. The Prime Minister said the acceptance of 15 seats was not just a question of splitting the difference between 12 and 19 and reaching the figure 15, but because Singapore would be getting three-quarters of the State revenue. If you like, Sir, the paper is available.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that is exactly what is contained in the letter of 11th November, 1961. Is that correct?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry if I had been misunderstood. But quite simply what it means is this: those items not appearing in the Singapore Budget and which come under the Federal List will be taken out of the Singapore Budget. Our Police Force will then be paid by the Central Government. That is so. It is my job to negotiate, Mr Speaker, Sir. And the Minister for Finance will have to spend a heavy amount of work in apportioning pensions. Pensions is one of those things which they have decided [Interruption]. Yes, let me explain, Sir,It is a complicated procedure. Let me start off with the police, because I am quite sure the Barisan Sosialis are very interested in these matters.

As from the day of merger, the Minister for Home Affairs will only look after -

Some hon. Members: The Fire Brigade!

The Prime Minister: Fire Brigade and a few other things. No, no. He will look after - [Laughter]. Well, we are such a wicked, tyrannical Government! Are they not happy that we are rid of such a tyrannical Minister?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is why we are laughing.

The Prime Minister: Yes. But let me inform them of this. These are a few mercies for which they must be grateful. The Minister for Home Affairs will still be in concurrent charge of publications. So we will let Fajar be published - it does not matter. We will let the Barisan, you know, the red star and a blue circle, carry on. We will not cancel all these things. Where the item is concurrent, it will still appear in the State Budget. We will have to pay for it - the staff, secretaries and so on. Where it is completely Federal, like Police, Post and Telegraphs, Telecommunications, the whole lot will go into the Federation Central Budget, and a very intricate Establishment exercise is involved because of the pension liability.

Sir, I do not want to anticipate the tremendous financial problems that will crop up. But may I say this, and I say it with some reservation, looking at my colleague, the Minister for Finance: we have certain reserves and we intend - probably Brunei also intends - to keep these reserves aside for State development. But the reserves are already committed for pension liability of all officers. Now certain categories of officers, as in the P & T, Police, Prisons - I am sorry to be so morbid, Sir, but in the nature of things they go to the Central Budget; they will appear in the Federal List. Some of these officers have already served 20 or 30 years in Singapore, and for that part of their service, their pension liability will have to be borne by the Singapore reserves. Future service will have to be borne by the Malayan reserves or Pan-Malaysian reserves. And I am told this is quite a delicate exercise in the mathematics of actuarial -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Actuarial science.

The Prime Minister: Actuarial science. I am told you can calculate what the odds are. How many chaps die at what age, and who live to enjoy pensions for how long. These things have to be worked out. So it is with policemen, prison warders, postmen, and so on.

Let me inform Members of the House that this $90 million is just a misconception. I will not say more than that. I am sure the Member for Anson generally misunderstood, or I did not make myself clear. But this is that section of the Budget which will be transferred to the Central Budget. The Federation does not take over the Police Force tomorrow and then disband and sack the whole Department. Somebody has to keep the police going; the police stations, vehicles, replacements, V.H.F. equipment, latest finger-printing searchers, and so on and so forth. A very intricate business. It has to go on; it has to be paid for. In my estimation, in fact, the end result is that we will be keeping more than three-quarters, at least three-quarters. You will see in the letter I mentioned more than three-quarters. How much more than three-quarters we do not know, because of the pension liability and other things. But we will continue. This Assembly will not be emaciated. It will not become like the Johore State Assembly, Sir. Forgive me for mentioning such mundane things, Sir, but if it did, then suddenly Members' allowances would be reduced to $200 - a very sad thing for Barisan Members. I hear that nowadays they have to scrounge around to keep their branches going, to set up new branches and to pay rents and so on. Let alone the Speaker, Sir, and the whole panoply of his office. I do not mind being paid as the Chief Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Speaker is entitled to debate. The Speaker is impartial.

The Prime Minister: That is the point I want to make: that after everything is said and done, and having transferred all the Federal Departments to the Centre, we will still be in charge of over three-quarters of our annual revenue, and the machinery for collection will still remain as it is. And we will present yearly Budgets; albeit this time the obvious ones which will be missing, probably from the next Budget, will be Police, Prisons, Posts & Telegraphs. I must be fair to the Member for Anson. The only extra expenditure we will incur, and which we are not incurring at the moment because the British are discharging it, is the Ministry of External Affairs and Defence. At the moment, we pay nothing for it. The British pay for the Consulates. We only pay for Djakarta and London. We have a little Trade Commissioner's Office in London and one in Djakarta. We are hoping to set up one in Japan. By the special arrangements made, we will still have direct access to Trade Commissions in all the key centres for our entrepot business, but it will become part of the Malayan Embassy. And this is the -

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of elucidation?

Mr David Marshall: Yes, Sir.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: From what has transpired from the Prime Minister's speech, even though he is a political opponent, I would like to point out that in this matter, it was the Leader of the House who, in answer to my question, "Why are we giving this $90 million?", said, "For Defence" in this very House. Now what the Prime Minister has said has certainly clarified it. And I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider attaching addenda to the White Paper, so that we can the better understand it in the light of the elucidation both on the subject of citizenship and the expenditure of money before we continue the vote.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I will be happy to continue to elucidate. And I say quite frankly, as the Member for Farrer Park has said, if the Member for Anson, who is a trained lawyer of some repute, particularly in criminal matters he has a very high repute, can misunderstand this, probably there are other misconceptions. For that reason, we have published, this early. And we will give everybody ample time to raise any query on any subject. There are no cards hidden anywhere. There are no traps. There is nothing that is a fast one. What is done is open on the table for debate and for discussion. And I say the only extra expenditure which we are not incurring at the moment is to pay our portion of the Federation's Ministry of External Affairs and Defence. That has been calculated by the Ministry of Finance at about $12 million, if only Singapore and the Federation come in, or about $10 million, perhaps less, (maybe $8 million) if the Borneo territories also come in, because then they will have to share the load. That is all. That is the only load we are not carrying at the moment.

Sir, I now come to the second part of the amendment - the question of automatic conversion of Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship. Mr Speaker, we had anticipated that the Barisan Sosialis would continue to raise a false alarm. They will continue to do it over citizenship. It is our duty as the Government - and I hope we will be helped by Members even of the Opposition, who have principles by which they stand and who believe that this must be a necessary step forward towards our destiny to a more stable and prosperous society - to defend, to explain and to continue explaining until every lie has been bared.

Sir, in precise and clear terms, the White Paper explains that no Singapore citizen will lose his citizenship rights. Li addition, he will acquire new rights as a national of the new Federation. I repeat this again, because I think it bears repetition for the purposes of the record. Among those rights will be the right to elect representatives direct to the Federation Parliament; the right to carry the same passport and enjoy the same rights and privileges under the Constitution; and to be subject, of course, to the same duties and responsibilities for instance, conscription, taxes and so on. These rights and duties are set out in many sections of the Federation Constitution, beginning with Article 8, which emphasises that all citizens are equal.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: I do not want to labour the point, but I think hon. Members who are interested can look through the documents entitled, "Malayan Constitutional Documents". They can see there spelt out, equal rights, equal liabilities of all citizens which will later on be of all nationals of the new Federation.

'8. (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion race, descent or place of birth ...'

and so on. Citizens who will have to be changed to nationals.

'(3) There shall be no discrimination in favour of any person on the ground that he is a subject of the Ruler of any State.'

And so on to Articles 9, on prohibition of banishment, and freedom of movement. But here, may I add this, Sir? I do not want to mislead anybody. Under Singapore laws, and under the provisions agreed to in the Command Paper, Sessional Paper 31 of 1956, a Singapore Citizen can, for varied reasons, be he an opium smuggler or a smuggler of a less apparent commodity than opium, be called upon to show cause why his citizenship should not be questioned and so on. But that is another matter. I do not want to mislead anybody on that point. What I want to say is this, all rights in Singapore and the Federation, of Singapore citizens and Federation citizens and Federation nationals, will be equal. The operative Articles which will have to be amended will be 8, 9, 10, 47 (Qualifications for membership of Parliament), 119 -

Mr Speaker: Order. For the record, if the marginal titles are read, perhaps that will be sufficient.

The Prime Minister: May I then just run through the marginal titles of the provisions: 8. Equality; 9. Prohibition of banishment, and freedom of movement; 10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association; 11. Freedom of religion; 47. Qualifications for membership of Parliament: 119. Qualifications of electors; 123. Qualifications of Judges of Supreme Court. There are several other sections, Sir, hut these are the important ones which set out the rights and duties of nationals.

Sir, we have discussed the question of citizenship, nationality, and the representation of Singapore Members in the Central Federation Parliament with the Federation Prime Minister and his colleagues. Our respective arguments and view-points were recorded in an exchange of letters which were tabled on 24th November, Friday. May I, Sir, draw he attention of Members to certain relevant portions thereof? This is particularly important when considering the proposition now put forward by the Barisan Sosialis, namely, that all Singapore citizens should automatically become Federation citizens. They make this demand in the full knowledge that it is completely unacceptable to the Federation, and that it cannot be supported either by logic, reason or precedent in the Federation. First, may I read what the Federation Prime Minister said in his letter of 13th November, in the second and third paragraphs:

'I would like to emphasise that it cannot be assumed that the analogy of Penang or Malacca is necessarily relevant to the status of Singapore in a merger with the Federation. Article 22 of the Federation Constitution makes provision for a merger of new states on terms which do not necessarily have to follow Penang and Malacca which were already members of the Federation when the 1957 Constitution came into force.

If the stricter citizenship laws of the other States were applied to Singapore, Singapore would be entitled to not more than twelve seats, since less persons would be eligible for citizenship and consequently for franchise, quite apart from the question of weightage for rural areas.'

May I just pause there and explain this, Sir? The Federation's point of view is quite simple. Penang and Malacca were special. They were part of the Federation already. People born in Penang and Malacca were already Federation citizen by virtue of the 1952 Agreement before the coming into being of the independent Federation of Malaya. That is the first point. Secondly, if we were to follow the laws of Johore or Perak, either the Federated Malay States or the Unfederated Malay States, then however generously you interpret these rules and so on, their appraisal is that we would not be entitled to more than 12 seats at the maximum. Finally, they go on to say that in regard to the distribution of seats in the whole of the Federation as such - as in other countries where the parliamentary system is practised - by the nature of things and by the circumstances of geography, there is more representation per 10,000 of population in the rural than in the city areas. In the urban areas, people are concentrated together. One representative can cover one square mile, or even half a square mile. The Member for Kreta Ayer, the Minister for Finance, has a constituency, I think, which does not run to more than even half a square mile.

Mr Byrne: Thirty acres.

The Prime Minister: He has as many people to look after as the Member for Sembawang or the Member for Chua Chu Kang, who constantly complains of the enormous distances he has to travel. On the average, it has been worked out, I think, at about 30,000 per representative in the urban area and 20,000 per representative in the rural area, because the man in the rural area has to cover enormous distances. If that is taken into consideration, then it will definitely be less than 12 by any calculation. That is the Federation's point of view.

Sir, may I then read my letter to the Federation Prime Minister of the 11th November, setting forth our point of view? Third paragraph:

'If merger were completely on the basis of Penang, then the citizenship laws of the present Federation which applied in Penang will apply to Singapore. About 284,000 representing those born in Singapore out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for citizenship of the present Federation. This would entitle Singapore to send 14 representatives to the Central Federation Legislature. This is comparable to the 14 seats to which Johore's 291,230 citizens are entitled.'

Johore has 291,000 - 14 seats. We say that if Penang terms apply, we will have 284,000. These are the more important parts, Sir. How did we come to the figure 15?

'The remaining 340,000 Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore would have to apply for citizenship under the present citizenship laws of the Federation which require, inter alia, a residential qualification and a knowledge of the Malay language. On the basis of the numbers in the other States in the present Federation who have qualified by application for citizenship in this way, over two-thirds i.e. more than 230,000 will lose their present citizenship.'

This is really the crux of the problem. Because of the different citizenship laws in Singapore and the Federation, if we now apply the Federation citizenship Jaws, there are 340,000 Singapore citizens who will have to re-apply. If we study the statistics of people in the Federation who were not born there and who had to apply, then we will know fairly accurately what would happen in Singapore. What happened is that about one out of three was successful in their application. In other words, out of the 340,000, our calculation is that 110,000 will qualify and 230,000 will not qualify. This is the crux of the matter. If we listen to the Barisan Sosialis - or if we were foolish enough to listen to them - take them at their face value and ask for the Penang and Malacca type of merger, there will be a confused and riotous position in Singapore, because 340,000 people will have to re-apply, two-thirds of whom will not succeed. Therefore, we have arrived at the provision which I later explained in the letter. May I continue with the letter:

'On the other hand, the claim that Singapore citizens should automatically become Federation citizens and thereby increase the representation Singapore would be entitled to, was and still is, in the view of your Government, too absurd to merit serious consideration.'

This is quite simply what they told us. First, the Barisan Sosialis say, "We want Singapore citizens automatically to convert." A man comes here from India for two years. He would never have been entitled even to make the application, and so is disqualified on the face of the application because of inadequate residence. He then becomes a Singapore citizen because our laws are different. He says, "I want to be a Federation citizen now." Not only do we want that, but we then say, "Well, now, that entitles us to more representation." This, in the view of the Federation Government, is unacceptable and is known to the Barisan Sosialis. It must be obviously so, Sir, unless the Government wishes to lose the confidence of its own electorate there.

I went on to say:

'Merger on either of these terms would be unrealistic. However, you have agreed that all present Singapore citizens will keep their citizenship rights and become Federal nationals, provided this is not then put forward as a reason for an increase in the number of representatives for Singapore.'

This is the operative clause, Sir, - "provided this is not then put forward as a reason for an increase in the number of representatives for Singapore." It is as simple as that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, without discourtesy to the Chair, may I take off my jacket because of the air-conditioning? I must say, for the benefit of Members, that I did attempt to get the City Engineer to maintain pressure in the Assembly but not for the whole of the City area, but he explained to me that it was impossible to maintain pressure for the Assembly alone without at the same time opening the whole of the City area. Everybody would then open their taps and the pressure would fall down, and that would affect the air conditioning.

Coming back to my subject, may I say that this is the core of the problem? If we went in like Penang, and if what happened in Penang and Malacca happened here, we would have 284,000 automatically qualified amongst whom would be quite a number of Members from this House, not including the Member for Queenstown or the Member for Thomson, because they were not born in Singapore, or the Member for Pasir Panjang or the Member for Moulmein because they were born in China. They would have to reapply. That is another problem for them. But we say, "All will keep their Singapore citizenship. All will become Federal nationals and be equal to Federation citizens who also become Federal nationals." As far as national rights are concerned, they are equal. The only difference is in the voting, because these 230,000 - two-thirds of the 340,000 - who were not born in Singapore will not have qualified. The Federation does not want them just to go across the Causeway and start voting in Johore, thereby increasing their representation there, because they would not have qualified in any case. But we say, "No. We have allowed them to qualify under Singapore laws". The Federation says. "Well, that is your business, but we are not giving you increased representation as a result of allowing you to let them keep Singapore citizenship and becoming automatically Federation nationals." It is a simple case of saying, "Here is the Singapore cake. How do you share it, whether it is among 624,000 citizens of 624,000 minus 230,000 who will not qualify, that is not our business. But you are not going to get a bigger cake just because you say you have more citizens, because they would not have qualified in the Federation."

Sir, I went on to say:

'My government estimated that on a merger like Penang, Singapore would be entitled to 19 seats in view of Perak's 450,000 voters entitling Perak to 19 seats.'

Let me explain this, Sir. 284,000 born here; from the figures in the Federation of one out of three qualifying, we can calculate that 110,000 will qualify. 110,000 plus 284,000 makes 394,000; let us round it off at 400,000. Let us say that between now and Merger Day, everybody suddenly takes an interest in the national language and learns very hard, and the percentage will increase, not one in three as in the Federation, but say, 50,000 more will qualify; make it 450,000; that would entitle us to 19 seats. Perak - 450,000. I must make this point. This is our argument which the Tunku does not accept, as you will see in his reply. His point is that Perak - 450,000 is spread over a very large area, and we have to compute ourselves on the basis of the urban areas - Penang, Kuala Lumpur, Johore Bahru, Ipoh, Malacca - not the rural areas like Perak. But, anyway, our contention is 19 seats.

May I go on to the next paragraph but one:

'Finally, we have agreed that Singapore would keep more than three-quarters of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities on education and labour, social welfare, health and all the other matters set out as state or concurrent responsibilities in the schedule annexed to our memorandum, and he entitled to 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation.

This arrangement has precedents in constitutional practice. Northern Ireland, though part of the United Kingdom retains certain autonomous powers. In return for this, though Northern Ireland would he entitled to 16 seats on the basis of electoral strength, she has only 12 because she retains autonomous powers. Should in the future Singapore surrender some or all of her autonomous powers and state revenue to the Central Government, the question of representation can he reviewed.'

Sir, we have sold nobody out. We have bought nobody from the Tunku. All we have done is to try and find a way out of the anomaly that has been created by different citizenship laws. And even more important than different citizenship laws, a fact that everybody knows, if you want trouble - not this little boycott of the examinations, a manifestly reasonable academic problem of taking the examinations has already led to two motions in this Chamber, one beleaguered Parliamentary Secretary and the Serjeant at Arms greatly imperilled by being asked to undertake duties which he had not bargained for when he undertook his office. But can anybody in his right mind doubt the opening we will give to misunderstanding and trouble if we say education goes to the Federation? $120 million a year is spent on education alone. Annual recurrent teachers' salaries, books, this, that and the other, $90 million; building new schools $30 million. We hand over $120 million to the Federation Government and say, "Implement the Rahman Talib Report." Then I say quite obviously we are not only ham-handed, but we deserve to be in trouble because obviously we do not understand our own problems. Does anybody in his right mind - and already some people are questioning whether one Member opposite is in his right mind - believe that you can stand up in Singapore and tell the people here, particularly the Chinese-educated, that they have to implement the Rahman Talib Report? Only one-third instruction to be in the mother language; the vernacular; there will be no more public examinations in Chinese; any school which does not comply with those rules ceases to get grants in aid. In other words, Chinese High School, Chung Cheng, Nanyang University atrophy, shrink and die away. No more bursaries for students in Nanyang or Chung Cheng for their post-secondary examinations, studies and so on. And they say we have sold out the people, Sir!

The time will come, Sir, when we shall put these things to the test. We understand these problems. I give myself no credit, Sir, for understanding these problems a little better than the Member for Queenstown, because he started getting interested in these problems only since about February 1959, when he saw the P.A.P. flash and the circle. We have been living with these problems for years. The Member for Anson remembers well what happened. In 1954 and 1955, he became the Chief Minister. I used to see him on behalf of the students. I saw both sides, Sir,I saw a Chief Minister really trying his level best to do what he could to resolve the matter. I saw kids bright and intelligent and able organisers, but with chaps at the rear to see that they did not settle these matters. The Member for Anson knew that. It is not the kids who did not want to settle. It is the chaps who were behind the kids, it is like the Hock Lee problem. He went down there, and so did I. I was advising the Hock Lee Union. He was there trying to resolve the dispute between the employer and the union. He ate a bowl of kway-teow on the spot to the delectation of the photographer. He thought it was settled, and he went back, and so did I. I thought it was settled too. We went back and we discovered it was not settled. It was not the Union Committee that decided. He saw the Union Committee. I hate to say this, but I do not think it was just because of his persuasive powers, but because it was a reasonable settlement. They accepted. We then departed believing the problem was over. Four days later, there were riots in Singapore because the real chaps behind who made the decisions did not want a settlement.

Similarly, with the 4:2 and 3:3 systems. We have been through all that. That is why we never made the decision. The Government did not make the decision 4:2 or 3:3, it was the Chinese educational experts themselves - the school management committees and school principals - who decided on 4:2. So you see the problem of the Communists when they have not got a united front. Supposing we had decided on 4:2, then we would have had Mr Ko Teck Kin on behalf of the school management committees and Mr So and So. All these hidden men keep quiet, and virulent words would be uttered via manifestly moderate, reasonable merchants who are obviously not interested in politics but only interested in commerce and the education of their children.

But this time it is different and it will continue to be different so long as this Government is in office. When we were going through all that, we were doing a little bit of computation as to what would happen one of these days if we had to be responsible. We did not intend to play the role of just being a whipping boy, slogged from one corner of the ring to the other.

Sir, I thought many of the decisions of the Member for Cairnhill were tricky and unwise, but I could not help feeling sorry for him as a human being, pulverised. beaten to pulp, the day he ill-advisedly allowed the police to go in with steel helmets, wicker basket shields and tear gas to clear the Chinese High School and the Chung Cheng High School. That day he died.

Mr David Marshall: That was only the day before yesterday.

The Prime Minister: No, that is different. We do not intend to use steel helmets and wicker baskets. I told you we have already found Out from Italy that they have itching powder. Let me explain it. I saw it from a ringside view. I was with the Committee of Human Rights speaking at Beauty Park. I do not know whether the Member for Havelock was there. Has he gone to the Federation yet? I am not sure whether he has left for the Federation. But I think he will remember that we went up there and railed against the colonialists. They were still in charge, and there were no doubt about it. The Chief Secretary gave the orders. Mind you, the Chief Minister agreed, and that was his greatest mistake. That night, Sir, I saw the preview of what was coming. We finished the meeting at seven o'clock. I came down Bukit Timah Road and I saw the police line up, and so did the parents. They just lined up to watch their own children in anxiety and these little picket boys playing bandits. It is very exciting, this business of putting on handkerchiefs. It gives them a sense of adventure. Sheriffs and bandits! They kept the parents out and the police prepared to move in. The parents watched in anxiety for their kids. That night the police moved in - one night of tear gas and charges. The next morning at seven o'clock, the kids were weeping from the tear gas. I can assure Members opposite that when I went into the fourth branch of the Shop and Factory Workers Union two days after the riots, the gas was still there and I came out from the premises weeping.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And you will weep again.

The Prime Minister: I am told this tear gas is a bit old-fashioned nowadays. It is the foolish colonial chaps who do these things and make martyrs of people.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Speaker was so engrossed that he did not realise that the Prime Minister is straying away from the motion. Perhaps we will stop at itching powder.

The Prime Minister: I think we had better not start that one, Sir, or the Member for Queenstown may be spending a sleepless night, because I am told that if you are given a dose of it, your first and only thought is to go home and have a good bath, and having had a good bath you will not feel like going out for some time.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It will hurt the user more than the used.

The Prime Minister: Is that so? I am not sure about this, it depends on how it is delivered, Sir. But I am told, beyond any doubt, and having seen pictures of it, that the effect is immediate. Suddenly an angry man in a position -

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): On a point of elucidation.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: In case the Prime Minister is not joking and is seriously thinking of using it - he has said he has had no experience of itching powder but he has experienced tear gas; vice versa when I was a child, I used to be interested in magic shows and I ordered some itching powder - let me tell him that its effect on children will be more cruel than the use of tear gas. Having had experience of that, and he has not had it, I would like to advise him that if he ever thinks of using it on school children in another boycott, please do not do it.

The Prime Minister: I am deeply indebted to the dear Lady for giving me the advice. After all, my kids may be involved too and I do not want to harm them. I do not mind their getting a good scratch and then having a good bath, but no more than that. Several members of the Chambers of Commerce - eminent gentry - have children who also put on white masks. It is all fun and games. But let us keep it at that level - fun and games. There is no need for martyrs in Singapore. If we have clowns and foolish men, well, let them be branded as such. Why make them heroes? That is the point the P.A.P. learned. We do not intend to let education go to the centre for the simple reason that that is the surest way to start trouble. There will be real trouble and real misunderstanding. And I say even if the Communists want to stop it, they will not be able to, because it has nothing to do with Communism. This is the latent hangover of generations of culture and tradition, and it takes a long time to get a multi-racial people together. I have covered this theme often before, particularly when the various component parts are being inspired by what is happening outside Malaya - the Chinese by what is happening in China; the Indians by what is happening in India, and the Malays by what is happening in Indonesia - and at this juncture in history, we are trying to get the races to come together. So let us not make our job more difficult. If the Barisan Sosialis stand up and say, "Ah, why not let us have a Pan-Malayan education policy?", I say to them, that we have fortunately got that down in writing, and they may yet live to be sorry that they have put it down in writing, because we will prove to them, first, that that is not what the people of Singapore want, and, second, that when they said that, they were utterly and absolutely insincere.

Sir, before I pass on from citizenship to nationality, may I mention that the Member for Queenstown has asked nine questions regarding citizenship and nationality, and the Member for Thomson has added a few more - according to reports, as I did not have the privilege to listen to him. Sir, these questions make interesting subjects for a discussion in a forum in which - as I understand from the interjections of the Member for Queenstown - he is eager to take part. It is only the inordinate length of this debate that is preventing him from expressing his views to the people of Singapore in person. No doubt, Sir, as this debate comes to a close, he can discuss his nine questions with the Member for Kreta Ayer, the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Hong Lim. They are interesting questions.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What about the Member for Anson?

The Prime Minister: He will be coming too. Sir, I am looking forward to seeing the Member for Anson, but I think he should not take away the fire and the light from the Member for Queenstown. He should be given one on his own with the Member for Kreta Ayer, and then perhaps the Member for Anson on some other occasion.

Sir, everyone of these proposals in Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Is farcical.

The Prime Minister: Oh, you can take part in the forum. Sir, it is so dull and uninteresting. He gets these questions written up somewhere and he says, "Please answer them." It is no use. We answer them and then his Party think out new ones and he comes back and asks us some more - as we have seen, Sir, on one occasion when they agreed to a motion to be debated. If only we were allowed to say, "Proceed now and debate," as on Thursday if we had to discuss the Chinese school students and the pickets.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It was a surprise.

The Prime Minister: No, there was no surprise.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: To distract attention from the debate.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister should ignore these interjections and just carry on.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the point I want to make is this. As I understand parliamentary democracy and the democratic system, one of its most vital features is the open confrontation. [Interruption] Yes, true. The Member for Anson is absolutely a past master in the game. As when a witness is in the box on oath and he tells a lie, he is literally torn to strips. But if the witness just reads a long statement from the dock and refuses to answer questions, you know what it is worth. It is a waste of time. Anybody can draft a 7�-hour speech. In fact, I was aghast at the lack of ingenuity, the lack of material and the lack of flair in the 7�-hour speech.

An hon. Member: Hi-fi record.

The Prime Minister: I think the Member for Queenstown may be interested in this because it has something to do with his future. The Minister of the Interior of the Federation was playing golf with me the other day -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think there was an attempt by some Member - I do not remember who it was - to give that story to this Assembly and I stopped him.

The Prime Minister: This is a different story. It has nothing to do with the conduct of the Member. All that the Minister said was that he admired the 7�-hour speech; that Krishna Menon, when he was in the United Nations, made a seven-hour speech; and that the Member for Queenstown had beaten him by half an hour. And he also said that Krishna Menon was being recalled. But I will say this for Krishna Menon. When he talks, it is Krishna Menon who is talking. Everybody knows that. He does not just read his scripts. There is the touch of the artist. When the Member for Anson talks, I have no doubt whatsoever that it is the Member for Anson who talks. Sometimes, to the discomfiture of the Barisan Sosialis boys, they keep on asking him for advice. Because, after all, there are moments when, in the name of humanity and human beings, he comes right down to the core and says, "Well, that is fair. I will vote for it. I will not condone." And he voted for the motion. He takes no line from anybody. We know that. That is why we never blame him for the Public Daily-Rated Employees Union strike. We knew he was not involved in it. That is the point - the open confrontation. The Member for Queenstown is an exponent of democracy as it is understood by the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Farrer Park has also learnt a little bit from colonial days. In fact, I think he must be quite experienced by now, having seen different ages come to pass. I can assure the Member for Queenstown the moment this debate is over, the invitation is on the table. He can have his nine questions answered, and more. We also have a few questions to ask him.

As I have said, it is futile to have all these long speeches. The Members just read them. These speeches just have no meaning. You give the answer and they go home to think of something new and ask another question. So we say, have the questioner there; we give the answer, and at the same time we ask the questioner another question. So we mutually ask questions of each other to elucidate the matter. I can assure the Member for Queenstown - he can ask for advice from the Member for Anson - that in the process of cross-examination nothing is more serious than to tell a lie, because when they ask you for one false premise, you are drawn relentlessly down to an absurd conclusion, and finally the House burst out in laughter. This time the witness will not be joining in the laughter because it will be at his expense. Sir, I look forward very much - and I hope too will other Members of this House - to listening in to this exciting forum that is to come on the nine questions.

Mr Speaker: It is now a convenient time to suspend.

The Prime Minister: As you please, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.49 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

The Prime Minister: Sir, we are ready to discuss, to explain and to show that every one of the proposals in Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 is just, fair and reasonable. Those who make fantastic allegations of a sell-out of Singapore rights to the Federation of Malaya should do well to ask themselves whether the people would believe that a government which is contemplating a sell-out of the rights of the people would act in the way we are doing. First, we have published the agreement between us and the Federation Government as soon as it is ready and before the Tunku left for London on the 16th of November. We wanted to give ample time to everyone for a full debate on every point. Second, we are willing and ready to explain the reasons for every one of these provisions to everybody and every association of citizens genuinely interested in and concerned over the future of the people of Malaya, and to give these explanations in any language at any convenient time and place. I may add here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Chinese Chamber of Commerce is arranging a meeting of representatives of their member associations and their guilds in order to seek clarification of points connected with education, multi-lingualism, citizenship and trade. And I will be happy - I have already indicated that the Government is happy - to attend to give all elucidation and answer all questions that anybody wishes to raise. Sir, I will not be organising this meeting. It is to be organised by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We have asked questions which you cannot answer.

The Prime Minister: That is the point, Sir. These are so exciting and interesting that I think they make a good series over the wireless, and we are looking forward to it.

Mr David Marshall: The Assembly would like it early, you know.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think they should be given in time. As I have explained, I am greatly indebted to the Member for Anson because I did not understand why the Barisan Sosialis moved the first limb of the amendment, "genuine merger as a twelfth state", because they were asking for something which was already in the proposals. But when the Member for Anson read out the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, then I understood him - whatever we say cannot be done, they then ask for, Mr Speaker, Sir, and they misread this part. So they ask for a twelfth State, not knowing that is what they are getting, much to their discomfiture.

Third, we are prepared to put all or any one of these proposals before the people for them to decide on. Sir, let me ask the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors: if there is a sell-out, what is the sell-out in return for? What is the price?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: To keep you in office.

The Prime Minister: This is the price we are accused of in return. This is how this scheme came about - the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister would be resigning and a new Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister would be installed. They were fully aware that only in May this year, after Hong Lim, the P.A.P. Government was quite prepared to resign and return the mandate to the people. At that time, Sir, we saw no way out of the economic, social and political problems; no prospect of merger and no Common Market in sight, for without merger and without a Common Market, we cannot resolve these problems. We cannot meet the expectations of the people for jobs, houses, welfare benefits, and so many of the other wants which they kept on repeating as we went canvassing in Hong Lim. It just was not possible. "Why have I not got a house?" "Why have I not got a flat?" "Why have I not got a job?" There was no answer. The reason was that economic expansion was being constricted by competition between Singapore and the Federation for capital development. At that time, they - the Members now in the Barisan Sosialis - wanted us to carry on in office. You will recall the Press statement by the so-called Left-wing unions - "Duty to the people, and so on; we must carry on." Shortly after Hong Lim, we had a Party meeting, and they told us, "We must carry on. Ignore the people of Hong Lirn. That was no real verdict; no true expression of the people who really counted." Moreover, the Member for Queenstown, in particular my former Parliamentary Secretary (the Member for Upper Serangoon) - the two of them added, if Mao Tse-tung had to stand for election in China with all the food shortage in the communes, Mao Tse-tung would lose his deposit. That is the truth; the absolute and utter truth! That is what they told us.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He is not here to answer.

The Prime Minister: You were there too!

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Speaker was there. Will the Prime Minister address the Chair?

The Prime Minister: That is a fact. If the Member for Queenstown is not very careful, we might dig up the tape recorder. The meeting was held with tape recordings, if he will remember.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Bring it up then.

The Prime Minister: And they all know what was said.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Bring it here.

The Prime Minister: We must not do too many things at one time, Sir, because it spoils the ending. It is difficult. It is nor as if we went to see a Western, Sir. Whether or not you could tell in the end how the bandit was caught by the sheriff, you still see the picture. But if in a live play, whilst it is in progress, you tell how the sheriff in the end is going to catch the bandit, the bandit may be absent! So let us leave it until after the event, Sir, when it is all over, and we will put it in a sealed envelope and say, "There you are. It happened that way."

Sir, my Parliamentary Secretary urged me not to pay too much attention to these democratic niceties. He said that, after all, what mattered was not whether the people thought we were doing good or not, but whether, in fact, we were doing good to the people or not, and, in his view, we were. So we should carry on.

Now we have something to fight for, a worthwhile task to fulfil on behalf of the people of Singapore, to bring Singapore into reunification with the Federation of Malaya to a more stable and prosperous society, where we see prospects of expanding our economy, creating more jobs, more homes, and more prosperity. But when we have this, they want us to resign. Do they believe that the people have such short memories? Do they believe that the people cannot see through the sudden twists and the roundabout turns of the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They will not forget you.

The Prime Minister: You will remember, Sir, that in September this year, the Leader of the House, in a letter to Members who are leaders of the Opposition Parties in this House (amongst them the Member for Queenstown), asked them to state their Parties' views on merger. In his reply the Member for Queenstown stated that Singapore should be merged with the Federation as the twelfth State, like Penang and Malacca. Sir, I emphasise the working words, "like Penang and Malacca". He wrote them on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis. Yet he is now asking that, unlike Penang and Malacca, Singapore should not abide by the citizenship laws of the Federation of Malaya, but that there should be automatic conversion. As the Member for Anson said - I was not fortunate enough to listen to him but I sought confirmation of it in the reports on the following day - the Barisan Sosialis demand for complete merger like Penang and Malacca was a great mistake. I venture to suggest that their ghost writers were driven to this predicament by their being forced to say that they wanted complete merger when, in fact, the last thing they want is merger in any shape or form, until of course, there is a Communist government in the Federation of Malaya, or the Communist government in Singapore could capture the Federation of Malaya. But having said that they wanted complete merger, they then - as the Tunku said in his Parliament on the 16th October - "ask for impossible terms" (these were the Tunku's words), so that merger can be frustrated. And if this demand for automatic conversion were unexpectedly agreed to by a generous Federation Parliament, then the Communists would oppose merger on some other ground. Of course, the trouble is this: it is difficult to get the people to oppose merger on the ground that merger is not good for the Communists. So they have to get the people to oppose merger by falsely alleging that the merger proposals are bad for the people. These are united front dialectics. If you admit to the people that merger is bad for the Communists, then the people will say, "So what? Is it good for me [the people]?" And you show them that it is. And they tell the Communists, "Well, it is too bad for you. Why be a Communist?" They understand that, Sir, in the same way as this 4:2 and 3:3 education systems. We did not win the battle. The people did. They were unable to bamboozle the people into believing that the 4:2 system was bad, and so they failed. It is too bad for the Communists. Why? Because they wanted to create trouble on any issue. The people did not believe it. They lost. Hence, their constant search for an issue ostensibly unconnected with the Communists round which to rally - it is quite obvious to all Members of the House - the Chinese in particular to oppose merger in any shape or form. This is the open communal line the Barisan Sosialis have taken since this Assembly reconvened.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Nonsense! That is the P.A.P. line.

The Prime Minister: The questions from the eight of them: what were the supplementaries about? People who were studiously learning the national language when they were sitting on this side of the House suddenly decided to talk in Mandarin.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have ruled that comment of that nature is out of order because the Standing Orders just say that any Member may speak in any language.

The Prime Minister: That is so, Mr Speaker. But let me say that it is because of their open communal line that they have naturally provoked some dangerous talk by Malay Assemblymen about bringing out the parang pan fang and the kris. Who has provoked this? We the Government? Or the Barisan Sosialis by their own communal slant? But I say to them that theirs is an almost impossible task. The Chinese, the Indian-speaking and the English-speaking sections of the people in Singapore know in their heart of hearts that they do not want merger on the basis of Penang or Malacca. The reasons are obvious. If those conditions apply, 230,000 will lose their citizenship rights because they cannot qualify under the Federation citizenship laws. Everybody - not just the 230,000 - will lose the present status which he enjoys. Perhaps the more appropriate word would be "privilege" - free competition between all races in the civil service, in trade, commerce, industry, and in nearly all walks of life in Singapore. This is a free area. Seven out of our nine Permanent Secretaries have come from the Federation. Three out of our five local Judges have come from the Federation. Seven out of nine Ministers have come from the Federation. Do the Barisan really seriously suggest that the people in Singapore and Singapore citizens want to go in on the basis of Penang and Malacca? Honestly, do they believe it?

One of the Member for Queenstown's ghost writers has referred to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland. I thought this is for them an unfortunate example. That is the trouble with young and inexperienced ghost writers. It is because there was complete merger at the beginning between Ireland and England, with no reserved powers for Ireland, that the Sinn Fein movement started.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Under compulsion.

The Prime Minister: I am told that when the Member for Queenstown spent his years in college, he was a good rugger player, a good chess player, and a good athlete. He once ran the 440 yards and won it. But I do not think he was a good student of history. He has his facts wrong. He does not understand these things. It is because complete merger at present may lead to unhappiness and a Sinn Fein movement that the Tunku has agreed to give Singapore larger powers of local autonomy, like Northern Ireland. Had these powers of local autonomy been given to Southern Ireland, the history of Eire might well have been different. On the other hand, the people who want to create Sinn Fein trouble are the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis. They are suggesting that we should hand over education to the Federation Government and implement the Rahman Talib Report in Singapore, with all its full consequences on Chinese middle schools and Nanyang University. But while they are publicly saying this on the one hand, their agitators and cadres - I do not mean the Barisan Sosialis; I mean the boys behind the Barisan Sosialis, namely, the Communists - Communist agitators and cadres are mounting trouble in Chinese schools over a very simple and innocuous proposition that has been agreed to between school principals, management committees and the Education Ministry; namely, that all those who want to take the Government Upper Secondary II Examination -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order. Sir. What has that he has said got to do with the amendment in question?

Mr Speaker: This subject has been discussed and counter discussed not only in this particular motion but in other motions. I take it the Prime Minster is mentioning this in passing. If he goes into detail, of course, he will be out of order.

The Prime Minister: I fully understand what a painful subject all this is to the Member for Queenstown, in view of the unfortunate sequences of events namely, that they did not find us a haphazard Government out of use batons and policemen. But, nevertheless, let me mention the relevance. The Member for Queenstown was asking, in his 7�-hour speech, for complete merger in which education goes to the Central Government. I am questioning the sincerity of that because I have pointed out that the men who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis are manipulating these agitators in the Chinese schools. On the one hand, he, on behalf of the Communists, says education goes to the centre. On the other hand, while education is still in Singapore, they are causing trouble long before it goes to the centre. Does anybody in his right mind doubt what would happen if this Government says education goes to the centre, in defiance or in complete oblivion of the wishes, the feelings and sentiments of the people? The Barisan Sosialis say this. On the other hand, when there is a meeting of parents, the Barisan Sosialis Tampines Committee Member turned up. I tried to find out whether he has a son. My first information is that the man is not married. Because of the Tommy Koh incident, I have asked to make quite sure. Maybe he has a wife whom we do not know of and has a son whom we do not know of. So we are checking up first. That is why he is mentioning this. It is an unpleasant subject to the Member for Queenstown because truth is an unpleasant thing to those who are hypocritical. The simple proposition - and this is the truth that I am reciting now - has been agreed by the school principals, management committees and the Ministry of Education. It is not a Government edict, Sir. It is their choice - 4:2. All those who want to take the Government Upper Secondary II Examination at the end of six years must pass the Government Secondary IV at the end of four years. It is a very simple proposition. Before you take your M.A., you first get your B.A. Then they cause a boycott because they do not want to take the B.A. They just want to take the M.A. Pass or fail does not matter! It gets so complicated, Sir, that I do not know how they argue themselves out of this proposition.

When we were in the united front - I do not want to be immodest in saying this - at least we kept our arguments to reality and logic. We paid some attention to logic and reason and sanity, because we refused to join them in anything which was illogical and unreasonable. But the Barisan stars are different. They shoot off into outer space like sputniks, some of them never to return! They are trying to get the Chinese middle schools and students excited over the proposition, as absurd as saying that students should be allowed to go to Nanyang University before they pass the Senior Middle III Examination. But nobody has suggested that. Obviously that is absurd. If you do not pass the Senior Middle III, how can you go to Nanyang University? But they say, if you do not pass the School Certificate, never mind, you still go on and take the Upper Secondary III examination.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order. The Prime Minister is going into the question of education, and you disallowed us a chance to talk on this.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I remember the Member for Serangoon Gardens did endeavour to debate the 4:2 and 3:3 systems. I permitted him to mention the matter in passing. But I stopped him when he was going into details on the merits and demerits of these systems. But I do not think the Prime Minister has got as far as that yet.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to go into details, partly because I am not fully acquainted with the details. We left this to the Chinese educational experts to decide. And they decided it this way. That is the reason why, when the students were running around, some of the experts were locked up in the class-rooms and the principals could not get out. They were beleaguered and there was no Assembly to help them out with resolutions, sad to say, Sir. The trouble over the boycott has stopped for the time being. But I say this, in connection not with Chinese education but with merger and the Communist attempt to frustrate merger, that we would be unwise to assume that the Communists have decided not to use the students any more as a source of mischief and disorder in their attempt to prevent merger. Therefore, I say to this House that when the Government is forbearing to the point of being accused of weakness, let them remember that it is always better to be accused of being too tolerant, too gentle, than to lend the slightest shred of credence to the accusation that we use brutality, like the Member for Cairnhill - brutality, atrocity. I saw them, Sir. As I said, they used tear gas - a very foolish thing - and batons, not to beat the students, hut just to disperse them. And they came down in marching columns from the Chinese High School to Newton Circus singing. A memorable evening! That day Mr Chew Swee Kee died politically, because, to thousands of Chinese parents whose children were in Chung Cheng and Chinese High Schools and who did not understand what this was all about, their innocent children were being flushed out in defence of Chinese culture, civilisation and language. So that was what they were there for. In defence of Chinese culture, civilisation, language; Malay culture, civilisation, language; Indian culture, civilisation, language; English culture or English-speaking and so on and so forth!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: P.A.P. culture!

Mr David Marshall: They have no culture.

The Prime Minister: That coming from the Member for Anson, Sir, I feel a bit sorry because he must understand. I am not in a vulnerable position. I am Chinese. I could throw myself back as a Chinese and play the Chinese line. It is quite simple. I could survive. I have learnt the language a little bit. I will learn more as the years go by.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Getting old.

The Prime Minister: So says the Member for Queenstown. But those who are not, I say it is utter stupidity to play this line. This is the way to a red blood-bath which neither the Communists nor the Government can stop. This is what happened in Ceylon - Singhalese versus Tamils. This is what happened in India - Punjabis versus Gujeratis: Punjabi-speaking, Malayalee-speaking, Andhra-speaking - a whole host of problems so developed. So let us not start these things. The attitude of the Government towards these matters must obviously be simple and obviously reasonable. There is no reason at all to be excited about the future of Chinese education, language or culture. Education in our merger proposals is a subject reserved for the State, and there will be the financial provision to make this a reality - genuine reserved powers.

Sir, the 4:2 system, as I have said, has been agreed to between the principals, management committees and the Ministry of Education. It is not our wish to impose any change on the Chinese educational system, or the Malay educational system or the Indian educational system, even if it is a change for the better, unless the Chinese educational world or the Malay educational world themselves desire the change. In this way, we shall watch the Communists run around in vain trying to find a rallying point in the Chinese schools from which to mount an assault on the Government

Sir, some Members of the Barisan Sosialis are keen bridge players. I am told by the Member for Jalan Besar that while the Barisan Sosialis were in the doldrums in the last few months staying at the Canning Rise Assemblymen's Hostel, reading the news of our progress towards merger, they used to while away their time playing bridge, day and night At a later date, I am told that it degenerated into poker, Sir. But bridge was what they started with - an intellectual exercise, Sir. Therefore, I say they will appreciate this little metaphor. We will call merger trumps. They raise the bid on merger's trumps. Our merger partner, the Federation Government, raise the bid higher. Finally the Barisan Sosialis call a grand slam for merger's trumps. They say they want complete merger with no reserved powers. They want more merger than we do. Sir, in our hand we hold 7, 8, 9, 10 cards of merger trumps. In the Tunku's hand, he holds the Ace, Jack, Queen and King of merger trumps. Sir, I do not know whether it is because the Tunku holds the Queen and King of merger trumps that the Barisan Sosialis have ill-advisedly called him a feudalist. But now, the hand will be played out to its inexorable conclusion and a terrifying lot of points will be lost in this little round. The folly of the false and hypocritical proposition that the Communists want more merger than the Singapore Government or the Federation Government, or the people of Singapore or the people of the Federation, will land them in more and more difficulties until the game is inevitably and irretrievably lost.

A lot of ill-considered and ill-conceived remarks about the Tunku and the citizenship and nationality proposals in this White Paper have been made by the Communists through the voice of the Member for Queenstown in this House. He has two assets, from their point of view, Sir. A strong voice and a total disregard for reason, logic and good sense. He has referred to the citizenship and nationality proposals agreed to between the Tunku and his colleagues and the Singapore Government as a form of apartheid in which he wildly alleges that Singapore citizens will be segregated from Federation citizens. Nothing, Sir, is more remote from the truth. The Tunku has said, "More up than down." We believe it is the other way. But whatever it is, does he believe a Government which allows, in constitutional theory, the Member for Queenstown to be eligible to be Prime Minister of the whole of the Federation of Malaysia? And he calls that apartheid! Dr Malan agreed that the Cape coloured persons and the Zulus can become Prime Minister of South Africa. And he says that is apartheid! What are we talking about? Sir, he has read too many different speeches written by too many ghost writers. The arguments they put forward for him to read are often contradictory. First, he asked, in writing (this is very important, because otherwise, he will say, "When did I say these things?"), for merger with Singapore as a twelfth State, like Penang and Malacca. Then he rejected the conditions of citizenship which applied in Penang and Malacca and wanted automatic conversion even though he admitted that the rules for Singapore citizenship were quite different, they being freer and easier than the rules for Federation citizenship. Then, in lengthy and complicated arguments, both he and the Member for Thomson -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Obviously you have never studied them.

The Prime Minister: Sir, one of the unfortunate burdens of office I have to carry is to read studiously through a whole host of jargon. I have to read through it in case I find one valuable point which has to be answered. So I studiously read through it. I am more fortunate than you, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I do not have to be here, but you have to be. But, anyway, you have a wig, so I hope from time to time you are safe from some of the more rigorous portions -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You read all that in spite of the thing causing you -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member for Queenstown would like elucidation. I am sure the Prime Minister will sit down. We cannot have these long interjections.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He was never here in the Assembly, Sir. All that I have said about citizenship never appeared in English newspapers, not even over Radio P.A.P.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: He reads Chinese.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I studiously spent long hours sweating it out with my Chinese teacher, reading the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Por which published every word of it verbatim. This led me to believe, since both these papers had exactly the same thing, word for word, character for character, that there was already a prepared Chinese text handed over. I went through the whole lot. I have to, it is my duty. Sad to say, I get no special allowance for all this, Sir.

As I was saying, then in very lengthy and complicated arguments, he and the Member for Thomson tried to show that even if the rules for Penang and Malacca applied, nearly all Singapore citizens would qualify. That is what the Member for Queenstown said, Sir. And yet on the 20th of October, when I asked him publicly in the newspapers to say, since he believed that all Singapore citizens would qualify under Federation citizenship laws, whether he would accept the citizenship laws that applied in Penang and Malacca. To that letter there was never a reply.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There was no reply from Toh.

The Prime Minister: There was no reply -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: From Toh.

The Prime Minister: I think he gets confused. I wrote this letter and I said, "Since you say everybody will qualify, would you mind saying categorically - if you believe in your argument that they will all qualify - "I accept it" and tell the people? Assure them that they will qualify." I do not tell the people that, because calculating the figures in the Federation, I know that 230,000 would be disqualified. The Member for Queenstown says, "No, they will all qualify." But when we asked them to say in writing, "Yes, we accept it," they kept quiet. Sir, instead, he has come back here and repeated the claim for automatic conversion, which he knows is completely unacceptable, and he has tried to laugh off the different residential qualifications required by the Federation citizenship laws by saying that only a few European civilians and ex-servicemen would be involved. I think I am right in saying that because I interjected at that point. I was here then. I asked him whether he was aware that a large number of Indians, as British Commonwealth citizens - or rather Commonwealth citizens (I think the British have decided to be more discreet these days) - are allowed to acquire and have acquired Singapore citizenship after only two years' residence -

Mr David Marshall: What place?

The Prime Minister: Here. Over 50,000 such persons, the majority of whom are Indians, have qualified in this way and would be disenfranchised on the residential qualifications alone, if we had merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. They include the 10,000 City Council Indian workers, and others in the Naval Base, Army, R.E.M.E. Workshops and Air Ministry. Of this 50,000 the majority are Indians, and only 1,000 or 2,000, at the most 3,000 are Europeans. And he laughed it off. I think this is food for thought. Let me do the computation for him. I think one of his advisers, Mr James Puthucheary, is a good statistician. He might confirm this for the Member for Queenstown. I rely on my colleague, the Minister for Finance. 624,000 voters in Singapore, Singapore citizens - Malay-educated, approximately 15 per cent; English-educated, approximately 10 per cent; Indian-educated, another 10 per cent. That is 35 per cent. They are solidly ranged against all these nonsensical proposals that the Barisan are spouting for. If we take the latest figures on the English-educated, every year since the last revision it has gone up; it is now 12 per cent. So it is now 37 per cent. The Barisan Sosialis can be quite sure that they start off with 37 per cent saying "No" to them. So you see, it is a pretty tough proposition.

They said they had 2,000 students attending the meeting, mass rally, procession or victory march. The Chinese papers said 4,000. So let us be fair. The Straits Times said 2,000 but I also read the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh and they said 4,000. 4,000 students out of a total of nearly 50,000 middle school students. That is a minority of 8 per cent, which, in this year of excitement, they can mount on the other side.

Sir, I view the future with a reasonable degree of equanimity, provided - this is an important proviso - we do not give any excuse for raising communal fears and tensions. I would beseech the Malay Assemblymen in this House not even unwittingly to help the Barisan in playing this line. It is a natural thing to react and talk of parang panjang and the kris, but it is not wise because what they say in this House, by the time it reaches the coffee-shops (which the Member for Farrer Park has talked about) is completely distorted and they say that what the Member for Geylang Serai and the Member for Kampong Kembangan promised was the kris and the parang panjang on the day of merger. A complete distortion would have gone out. Tensions would mount. So I say the less talk of this the better. If the Barisan want to play this line, they take the consequences upon themselves. I say neither wittingly nor unwittingly should we give them any excuse to mount this. We know the Member for Geylang Serai did not say that. What he said was, if they persisted in saying this, then in the end the result would be the parang pan lang. A fair remark. The Member for Kampong Kembangan said there was also the kris.

But we have a volatile situation, Sir. For no rhyme or reason, all of a sudden people think that somebody is going to attack another body, and the whole situation suddenly gets tense. It is a curious thing that before the ARTIS case was even announced, half the town already knew of it. Not a word had been uttered; nobody had been yet arrested; tension had mounted by word of mouth because, on communal issues, you can arouse fears so quickly and so intensely that it just is not true. I say, as responsible political leaders, however provoked we may be, let the Barisan alone play this dangerous line -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: P.A.P.

The Prime Minister: - for anyway, they are in a dangerous position. God bless them!

Sir, may I add that any Singapore citizen who goes to reside in the Federation and would like to give up his Singapore citizenship and, together with it, his special rights, State rights in Singapore, and his education, housing, social welfare benefits and so on, can do so and apply for citizenship of the Federation. If he can pass the rules for citizenship, including the language test, he can convert his Singapore citizenship into Federation citizenship. But there are 320,000 present Singapore citizens who will be unable, either because of the residential qualification or the language qualification, to satisfy the Federation citizenship rules. They can travel freely throughout the new Federation and enjoy equal rights and protection under the Constitution as nationals of the new Federation even though they do not convert their Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship because they cannot pass these tests.

Sir, this is a point worthwhile mentioning, not because the Members concerned are necessarily concerned only for themselves. This is one of the reasons why the Communists lay such great stress on automatic conversion. By way of example, Sir, the Members for Queenstown, Thomson, Pasir Panjang and Moulmein were not born in Singapore. The Members for Queens-town and Thomson were born in the Federation, and the other two were born in China. Under Penang and Malacca conditions of merger, they would have to re-apply for registration as citizens. They know very well, Sir, that the Federation Government does not give citizenship rights to Communists, pro-Communists, or conscious stooges of the Communists, and that if they are to apply for registration as Federal citizens they will never get it. There are quite a number in this category, and not just the four hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned. You will recall, Sir, that one of the demands they made on 2nd June for supporting us in the Anson by-election was to give citizenship rights to anti-colonialists, like Mr Fong Swee Suan and a few others. But they did not mention that these anti-colonialists were not nationalists but Communists, and we did not give citizenship rights to them. They are worried for these people. They have neither Singapore citizenship nor Federation citizenship, and they are not going to get Federation nationality. For their own selfish interest, to ensure that the few who have Singapore citizenship can run for election in the Federation in case they cannot win in Singapore, or in case they have not enough of what they call "kakis" in the Federation, they have mistakenly first asked for complete merger like Penang and Malacca, not knowing that, in effect, they were selling out the rights of over 230,000 Singapore citizens who would be completely disenfranchised by the application of Penang and Malacca conditions.

Sir, very few people in Singapore change their residence to the Federation, and over 99.9 per cent of the people of Singapore are not Communists; and of those who move to the Federation nearly all can qualify under the Federation citizenship laws to vote there for Federal State elections and Central Parliament elections if they can satisfy the residence and language test. But the Communists who apply will not be given that right, and they know that. Only they - and unfortunately there are many of them in the Barisan Sosialis - are anxious about the condition that they have to register for Federation citizenship, because they know that the Federation Government will not give citizenship rights to the Communists or pro-Communists or even conscious stooges of Communists.

Sir, we have been told that the term "national of the new Federation" means absolutely nothing. You will remember that the Member for Anson raised certain questions arising out of the term "national of the new Federation". I said then that I would ask the State Advocate-General to advise us on this question of nationality. I have done this and I have tabled his opinion for the benefit of all Members of this House. Sir, one of the advisers of the Member for Queenstown - I think he has two in the Party - is only a semi-qualified person. He has only passed certain parts of the law examinations. I do not know It may be. But if he has such an adviser, naturally he came to the conclusion that since there is no such term as "Federal national" in the present Constitution, then, therefore, the term "national" means nothing. Sir, this half LL.B. - because he has only half an LL.B. - went through this Constitution and said, "No 'national'. Therefore this means nothing." Surely do they expect the people to believe all this? Obviously I do not know, Sir,I was in the chamber and explanations were going on between the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Anson. I think the Member for Anson was slightly unclear about these proposals, probably no doubt through constant meetings with the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr David Marshall: You are very interested!

The Prime Minister: However, Sir, I am glad that the ignorance of the Member for Anson is not responsible far the lack of lucidity which is usually very apparent in his legal arguments.

Do they believe that all these proposals in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, which hears the signature of the Federation's Prime Minister, mean nothing, that the Constitution will remain like this and we just send up the 15 representatives voted by us? The Member for Anson - I quote him as an authority - negotiated the first talks in Singapore. He worked out his heads of agreement. He knew that once they were agreed to, it means that the parliamentary draftsman would step in to spell it out and enshrine it in the Constitution. Surely that must follow. I repeat once more: if for domestic and internal purposes, a man wants to change his rights of Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship or vice-versa, be can do so under the domestic or internal State laws of Singapore and the Federation. But for national and international purposes, it is unnecessary, because he will automatically become a national of the new Federation and whether he changes from Singapore to the Federation or vice versa, he is still a national of the new Federation with no right added or subtracted by his conversion. There is nothing to support the wild allegation that a Singapore citizen will be a second-class citizen or will be segregated from Federation citizens. It is just one of those Barisan Sosialis lines intended to confuse the situation.

Sir, I do not want to labour the explanations the State Advocate-General has given in his written opinion, but for the purposes of the record, I would like to refer to them - photo-engraved copies have been circulated to all Members of this House - and if there is any further point that requires elucidation, I am quite happy to refer the matter to the S.A.G. As I have said, Lawyer though I may be, it is not my business to be the Government's legal adviser. On these matters the Constitution lays down who is to advise the Government, and if the Government is asked for further elucidation, either in or outside this Chamber, we shall be only too happy to ask the S.A.G. to clarify. But I would like to paraphrase, if I may, because I am told by the Minister for Culture that the language used in the opinion is too legalistic and formalistic to be readily understood by the majority of people. I would like to paraphrase it in simple language without altering the meaning or the sense of what the S.A.G. has written. It simply means that the terms "citizen" and "national" have the same meaning. The word "citizen" is usually used with reference to a person's domestic or internal rights within a country and the term "national" is usually used with reference to a man's international standing and status. I would like to add that we could easily call all present Singapore citizens, together with the present Federation Citizens, citizens of the new Federation instead of nationals of the new Federation without any change in the meaning or the content. Calling a man a citizen or a national cannot add to or subtract from the rights of citizens or nationals of the new Federation by whichever term they are called. These rights have been agreed to in paragraph 14 of the White Paper and they will be so enshrined in the Constitution of the new Federation.

Sir, in the first merdeka talks in 1956, the Member for Anson secured the agreement of the All-Party Delegation - I am now quoting from Cmd. 31 of 1956. Annexure D - "Heads of agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Singapore". These provisions were set out from the pen of the Member for Anson arid were agreed to by all members of the All-Party Delegation, including myself and Mr Lim Ching Siong, the then Member for Bukit Timah. Paragraph 8 (7) reads:

'That the nationals of Singapore [not the citizens of Singapore] shall be:-

(a) person born in Singapore before or after the operative date.'

I do not want to repeat (b), (c) and (d), but may I point out that they had this proviso:

'Provided that nationality acquired under clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) may be revoked in accordance with the law for the time being in force.'

That is the only distinction between citizenship acquired by descent or birth and citizenship acquired by registration or naturalisation. Then in paragraph 9 of Annexure D, the Member for Anson, with the concurrence of all members of the All-Party Delegation, including the Member for Cairnhill, myself and the former Member for Bukit Timah, Mr Lim Ching Siong, agreed:

'The Singapore Independence Bill shall include a provision whereby a national of Singapore shall cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies but shall be a British subject or Commonwealth citizen, and the Singapore Independence Order in Council shall include a provision whereby a citizen of any Commonwealth country which recognizes nationals of Singapore as British subjects or Commonwealth citizens shall be recognized in Singapore as a British subject or Commonwealth citizen.'

Sir, I am not interested in the legal provisions there, but the point is that the term used was "national" - an orthodox, classical term. I had not done this bit of research at the time I answered the Member for Anson when he asked parliamentary questions. I think he will now recall that the term "national" was used to mean at the same time "citizen" - he nods in agreement, and I am happy to have that recorded, Sir.

Mr Rajah: The nod?

The Prime Minister: It is an important thing.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just wondering how our reporter will be able to record a nod.

The Prime Minister: For that reason, Sir, I have described it as an up and down movement of the cerebrum - not more than 25 degrees. Subsequently, when we came into this Chamber in the last Assembly to implement these proposals - this was one of the terms which were agreed to in the first Constitutional talks in 1956, not the second one, because we inherited this from the Member for Anson when he led the first one

• and when we translated them I did not know why, who or what, but the Member for Cairnhill then as the Chief Minister introduced a Citizenship Bill presumably because (I am not giving any secrets away) I think what happened was they just copied the Federation Bill. Since the Federation called them "citizens", they just changed "nationality" to "citizen".

Mr David Marshall: While we were asking for independence.

The Prime Minister: No, not because of independence.

Mr David Marshall: Not when I was called the Chief Minister.

The Prime Minister: I see. I think that is a valid reason. It enhances my argument that now that we are going to be independent, we will become Federal nationals. I am indebted to the Member for Anson for having reinforced my point. When the Member for Cairnhill changed it to "citizens", nobody said it was a sell-out. Now we change it back to "Federation nationals", and the Barisan Socialis say it is a sell-out. Now they have no less a person than the Member for Anson from whom from time to time I see them soliciting advice on matters of procedure.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We take advice from the people!

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yeah!

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown is a very angry man! I have indicated that if he wishes to interject, I am sure the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister: That is the point which I think I have to labour because - the Member for Farrer Park has already drawn your attention to it - it is being deliberately misconstrued outside. The Chinese characters, unfortunately, by translation, have not the same connotations as the English terms for the word. To any English-speaking man, particularly one who is familiar with legal language, one talks of nationality, never of citizenship. The first question that is asked when you enter any country and immigration forms have to be filled up is. "Nationality?". When you apply for a Singapore passport or a Federation passport, the question is asked, "Nationality?". But unfortunately when it is translated into Chinese, the original, more commonly used term for "citizen" is translated Kung Min, meaning public, people, citizen. And the word "nationality", Kuo Min, meaning country, people.

I am genuinely grateful to the Member for Anson for having been helpful in this matter, in convincing the people that the terms "citizen" and "national" mean the same, and that further, in the English language, the term more commonly used is "national", and not "citizen". This is the problem which has now arisen out of the interpretation of Kung Min and Kuo Min, and we may have to spend quite some time and I welcome every opportunity we have to do every conceivable thing to explain to all people that they are not losing anything. They are keeping their Singapore citizenship and they become automatically nationals of the new Federation. They can vote for their representatives to the Central Parliament. They have all the rights of nationals, anywhere in Malaya or Malaysia. If they want to go to the Federation and take part in State elections there, they can qualify under the State laws there or the Federation citizenship laws there.

But the point that must constantly worry the Communist backroom boys of the Barisan Sosialis is that whatever hap, pens, or whichever way you combine and permute the conditions for merger, after merger security will be in the hands of a strong Central Government, and their opportunity for subversive activities will be severely conscribed and confined. The Member for Queenstown has, on behalf of his Communist friends, denied that they are worried about this and has claimed that they are quite happy to go to gaol. Sir, I know of no sane man being happy to go to gaol, but I know of chaps who are not afraid to go to gaol. I quite believe there are some - I know of some in the Barisan Sosialis - who are not afraid. But I also know of some who are very afraid. That is another matter. They say they are not afraid to go to gaol, but are happy to go to gaol. Then, on the other hand, they get it in writing that the only proposal for merger which is acceptable to the Barisan Sosialis is that which is stated in writing, a confederation with internal security not in the hands of the Central Government. Then they are happy. They do not mind, Sir, about foreign affairs or defence. Even if you say, "$90 million", they say, "Make it $190 million. Tunku, take it. Provided I can run around here in Singapore and build a little ant-hill." You know, all the ants foregather, and the rain comes and dries up the ground.

Sir, if merger means that security has to come under the control of the Federation Government, I say it does in any government with a federal constitution; any government they can think of. One of their advisers is still a student, half LL.B. He can look up the Constitutions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States. In a federal constitution, security is in the hands of the centre, not in the hands of the outer region, because if you leave security ii: the hands of the outer region, then things begin to happen there. It is as simple as that. Because of this, they ask for impossible conditions, such as automatic Conversion. They know it is not possible, and they say, "Ah, that is what we must ask for." They misread the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech about it not being possible to do these things as a twelfth State like Penang and Malacca. They suddenly forgot to read, "as a twelfth State" and they say, "Ah, it is not possible to be a twelfth State. Right, ask to be a twelfth State." But we are going to give it to them - the honour of being the twelfth State. Sir, this is their dilemma. In a 7�-hour speech - which I do not intend to equal-the Member for Queenstown asked for complete merger as a twelfth State. He never once mentioned that he is, in fact, asking for education and labour to be controlled by the Central Federation Government. He knows, and even more so do his backgroom boys, the Communists, Sir. I mean the real ones, not the Member for Queenstown. He told me he just wanted to make use of them. "Why not make use of them?" He also told the Minister for Finance. There is proof of that, and that is why he has never dared to deny that.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Don't twist!

The Prime Minister: You either say you make use of the Communists, or you do not say it. If you have said it, then you have said it. I am quite prepared to accept the Member for Queenstown's explanation now that he really did not mean to make use of them, but what he really meant was that he was going to collaborate with them. That is another matter, Sir. He can give his explanation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We are talking about you!

The Prime Minister: Me? I have no intention of collaborating with them on a Communist united front. My intention, Sir, was to collaborate with them on a genuine nationalist, anti-colonial front against the British. So long as we were out to down the British, anybody that said, "I join you to down the British,", I would say, "Yes." The Tunku surely did not down the Communists until after he had got independence. He went to Baling with the Member for Anson, chit-chatted with Chin Peng, came to know of him, and came back. But he did not really go for them. When he got in-dependence and when the issue was not "How do we get rid of the British?", but "What do we do with Malaya?", then we parted company. I will not go in to join with them on abolishing the Internal Security Council, and full internal self-government which is going to lead to an independent Singapore. We saw through all that, and we are not that simple. We got them to sign on the dotted line when they came out of prison - Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan, and Sanderason Woodhull. And the objective was merger. From time to time, Sir, we must remind them of this document. They always find these things unpleasant. They spent 2� years of peaceful solitude and concentration and came to the correct conclusion that merger was inevitable. Then they came out. Night meetings, too much night life, and they came to the wrong conclusions - that the Internal Security Council should be abolished as a first step to an independent Singapore. What can we do, Sir? All I can say is, it is a pity that in the midst of their freedom and all this night life, they did not betake themselves to a quiet place and think things out. If only they had pondered over some of these things - I and my colleague, the Minister for Finance, told Mr James Puthucheary - they would never have made the grievous miscalculations that they had made. The Most Honourable the Earl of Selkirk, U.K. Commissioner. Things came to such a state, Sir, that in a crisis they were more pally with the U.K. Commissioner than they were with us. I said there was something wrong. I could not believe it. At that time I found it difficult of explanation. [Interruption] No. They happened to be true, unfortunately. But there are certain other things which have transpired and which perhaps they may be able to guess at, but we are not going to tell them at this stage - how these things happen and why they happen.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You are talking in riddles!

The Prime Minister: That is the point, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown, by his interjections, is prolonging the debate on the amendment. An interjection of that nature, I suppose, would ask for a reply, and I ask the Prime Minister not to give a solution to that riddle.

The Prime Minister: But I am quite prepared to write the solution down and hand it to somebody. And when the solution is already obvious, we can open it and read it, Sir. We knew the answer earlier, Sir. That is their trouble. But I will say this before we finish off with the Chinese education problem. They know that the last thing the Singapore Chinese want is the Rahman Talib Report to be implemented. There is a great deal of unhappiness and misunderstanding - some of it deliberately created, and some of it genuine - over this. That is the last thing any Singapore government should do. But they come to this Chamber, demand complete merger, and say. "Yes, [by implication] let the Central Government take charge of education." And these are the same men, in the same breath uttering and constantly uttering the direst of threats and abuses against the Rahman Talib Report, both in Singapore and the Federation. They have only one company. They do not form a limited company here and a limited company in the Federation. They have one limited company for the whole of Malaya and Singapore. They say one thing in the Federation and another thing in Singapore.

Sir, for the purposes of the record, I just want to read through this, that the Rahman Talib Report means that Chinese middle schools should teach only for one-third of their school-time in the mother tongue, and that public government examinations should only be in Malay and English. These are the very points the Communists are encouraging people to get excited about against the Rahman Talib Report. They come into this House and, through the voice of the Member for Queenstown, say. "Hand over education to the centre", in order that there can be real trouble then and merger can be frustrated. We are not concerned with their hysterics as they find the net of merger and a solidly united Malayan nationalist movement relentlessly closing in on them. The people of Singapore can read, can understand, and can discuss their rights and their future for themselves, and decide that the proposals which we have tabled are fair, just and in their best interests. The Singapore citizen will keep his citizenship; he will lose nothing. Instead he will get something more - the status of a national of the new Federation. This status will bring with it all the rights and privileges written iii the Constitution of the new Federation.

Sir, I have already explained simply that the only change which involves all Singapore citizens is a change for the better. Instead of the words "British passport" and "British subject" appearing on the passport carried by the present citizens of Singapore, there will appear the words "Federation of Malaysia passport" and "Federation of Malaysia national". Yet to the jaundiced eye of the Communists, Sir, this is a retrograde step. They want the Internal Security Council abolished. They want the British flag still here. They have come to an agreement with the U.K. Commissioner to leave the bases alone. They can still carry British passports. That is anti-colonialism, Sir! But when we get independence and national status, they say we are selling out!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We are not getting independence!

The Prime Minister: Come, come! I have already mentioned to the Member for Queenstown the possibility that if he could come to terms with his friends in Penang, there is a chance - maybe not for a very long time. But that is another matter. But from people who have long powers of endurance, they might survive all the trials and tribulations, and in the end - they never know. But I will say this to the Member for Queenstown. Whatever happens in the end, if they take the line they are taking now, it is going to do them no good, Sir, because they cannot win. If winning means that they win on behalf of the Communists, they just cannot win. They will not be allowed to win by the very nature of things. If you want to win, you have to win on your own behalf as a democrat, whether you are a Left-wing or a Right-wing. That is another matter. But be your own separate movement, not an adjunct of the Communist movement. Do not rely on the strength of the Communist organisation to provide you with the mass support. We did not, Sir. People used to say that should Lim Ching Siong get locked up, the P.A.P. would vanish and melt away. We did not. We carried on. People used to say, when the Member for Hong Lim left the P.A.P., that the masses would vanish. They did not. 3.000-odd solidly voted in Anson in spite of the treachery of eight Assemblymen who came out on the eve of the poll to shake the confidence of the public in the P.A.P. 3,000 -

Mr David Marshall: You did not get in!

The Prime Minister: Well, maybe. But we are not running away, Sir. We depend on our own stand, and further more, -

Mr David Marshall: You lost in Anson on your record.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to belittle the Member for Anson. He won by 500 votes. S.P.A. got a thousand votes. We got 3,000 votes. Somebody else got a hundred over votes. That does not matter, Sir. But I may say this. In the end, and the time is fast approaching, the line is drawn. The P.A.P. is all right. Win or lose, we are still all right. That is the beauty of the situation. We have an ensured position. Heads I win, tails you lose. Anyway, I cannot lose. The P.A.P. cannot lose.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Go to the election right now!

The Prime Minister: No, no, that is -

Mr Speaker: Order. As I have said, all these interjections are just prolonging this debate. Perhaps the Prime Minister could carry on with the debate and ignore these interjections.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I have tried to oblige all Members of this Assembly when they seek elucidation. However, I will press on as you have suggested.

They prefer full internal self-government, with the Internal Security Council abolished, to independence through merger. What kind of people are they? An average sensible man asks himself that. They claim to be anti-colonialists, and yet they are suggesting that we should continue to use British passports, as colonial subjects of Britain, in preference to an independent Federation passport, as nationals of an independent nation. The people understand also that with this national status go all the rights and privileges equal to those of the present Federation citizens, who will also become nationals of the new Federation. They say this is a sell-out. Sell-out to whom? The British? The Federation? To us? What are they talking about? Can the Member for Queenstown explain why, by his proposals, he prefers a British passport to the Federation of Malaya passport? He has seen it all published in the Chinese Press; he reads it studiously, like me too. He prefers to carry a British passport, and he says he is an anti-colonialist. It is a funny kind of anti-colonialism that insists on having the colonialists there all the time. When we say, "Look, shake them off. Let us be independent nationals." He says, "No." He may not know the answer. These are tricky questions for him, because he does not know the real answer. The real answer is that if you strike out the British, then the colonialists are out of the ring. Then you have to fight the nationalists and openly say that you are fighting them. Then you are in trouble when you fight them. It is one thing dealing with a dying British regime. It is another thing dealing with a virile nationalist regime. Those are the imponderables which the Member for Queenstown did not calculate carefully when he made his bid on merger as trumps.

Sir, these proposals are in the interests of the people. The people will endorse and support what is in their interests, whether the Communists like it or not. After allowing ample time for explanation and discussion to clarify all aspects of merger, we have no doubt that the terms the people will decide on are those which are in their best interests.

Sir, we have been called "desperate men". I, in particular, have been likened to Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-shek and Wang Ching-wei.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is true.

The Prime Minister: If I were even remotely like any one of these three gentlemen, the ghost writers for the Member for Queenstown, some of whom were in the Assembly -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already indicated that 1 will not allow any direct reference to strangers in the Gallery.

The Prime Minister: I want to remind Members of the nearness and the reality of the position. If we were remotely like any one of these three gentlemen, not only his ghost writers, but quite a lot of his other chaps would have been banished painfully, but quietly, without a squeak. This is how those three gentlemen dealt with their opponents. But we allow them a free debate. We invite them to a radio forum from which they studiously run away. What kind of Wang Ching-wei, Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-shek or Ngo Dinh Diem are we?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The radio is all yours!

The Prime Minister: We asked them to come, Sir. But they would not. They are shy. One of the most remarkable statements ever made was by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis. He said I hid behind a microphone. I thought all revolutionaries want to grab hold of the microphone and talk to the people. But he said I hid behind one. I asked him to join me at one. He did not feel at all happy about it. He did not turn up. What kind of Syngman Rhee am I? Did Syngman Rhee invite his political opponents to join him in Radio Seoul? No, Sir. As I have said, we talk peace, act peace -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You pose peace.

The Prime Minister: Act peace. No police, no batons, no force. We use arguments, reason and logic. Sir, the trouble the Communists are in, I think, has been inadvertently admitted by Mr Woodhull. Recently in the Press I read a reprint of what he said in a union magazine. He said the trouble was that it was easier to deal with reactionaries like the Member for Cairnhill and his S.P.A. than with us in the P.A.P. He said this in the C.P.A. Room and I was informed of it by the Minister for Culture. He openly told the Member for Cairnhill That he preferred to deal with him.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He did not pose so well.

The Prime Minister: Ah! He prefers him. I have confirmation from no less an authority than the Member for Queenstown. He prefers the Member for Cairnhill. Mr Woodhull said, "Strike me! Strike me!" The Minister for Culture said, "No, no. Why should we do these things? So long as you are democratic, we are democratic." I will tell them what is the problem. We have the advantage of knowing them, and knowing them well. We have good reasons to know them well.

Sir, in the old united front days, when we fought the British for the common objective of independence, we used to work together. We got to know their modus operandi. We watched the conjurer from the backstage, not from the front stage, Sir. We took out the top hat and they slipped in the rabbit, as I have explained. We pulled the rabbit out - applause from the multitude! At other times, Sir, they allowed themselves to be tied up and locked up and put in a big suitcase. After a decent interval - two and a half years - we unlocked the suitcase and they came out free men. But in the process we learned how they worked their tricks. We know how the props are used and where they are used. The trouble with the Member for Queenstown is - and this goes for quite a number of his Barisan Sosialis boys who are not Communists, there are quite a few of them who are not Communists who are running around with them - is that he has never had the experience of this gruelling process of working the united front with the Communists. It may he that one of these days, through lack of experience and over-excitement, as I have said, instead of pulling out a rabbit, he will pull out a serpent which may mortally bite him, to the discomfiture of his Communist props. That is why their ghost writers were watching so anxiously in this Chamber when the Member for Queenstown was performing for them. Often their faces betrayed their utter dismay as he bungled the role that he was asked to play. He read out their lines correctly, Sir. But often he got the stage directions wrong. For instance, instead of staring at us fiercely in the eyes denouncing us as he read his heavy lines of abuse and denunciation, written against us, he joined us in mirth and merriment at the absurdity of it all. Here was their great moment - like Hamlet, Sir, "To be or not to be." - And the Member for Queenstown broke into uncontrollable mirth. You can imagine the dismay of the directors! They wrote three red lines: Look fiercely. Stare them in the eyes -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is where you are wrong.

The Prime Minister: Hamlet broke down and laughed Sir! It was absurd. But, in fact, he has very little to laugh about, because there is a fundamental difference between the united front we worked together with the Communists in the years between the formation of the P.A.P. and the attainment of independence of Malaya, and the present united front between some non-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and the majority of pro-Communists and Communists. Let me explain the difference to him. In our united front from the years 1954 to 1957, it was the classic anti-colonial movement. The enemy was the Right force. The enemy was the British. Everybody who was against the British, be he a nationalist or a Communist, got together to oppose the British colonial system. That is the classic united front. The common enemy was the British imperialists. The people of Malaya - nationalists, Communists, anti-Communists, pro-Communists - sank their differences and got together to fight a common enemy.

Sir, as I have mentioned just now, even the Tunku did not fight the Communists until he got independence. Then he had to fight them, because after Merdeka the Communists wanted to fight on for a Communist Malaya. He did not want a Communist Malaya. That is the point. If we wanted a Communist Singapore, the way to travel that road is with the Barisan; abolish the I.S.C., next step independence, next step all irretrievably lost. Let me tell the Member for Queenstown, even in his own selfish interests, if he travels that road, assuming that that road can succeed, he will not succeed, Sir. Because he cannot control the forces that carry him there. But we can. We went with them up to a point, and the point was fight the British. The moment they change the enemy and say fight the Tunku, we say we do nothing of the sort. He is a nationalist and we are nationalists. He is Right, we are Left. But on one thing we are agreed - no Communist Malaya. Therefore, merger. I see he is more pensive these days, Sir. [Laughter].

Mr Speaker: Order. For a moment, I thought the Prime Minister was thinking of the Speaker, because he is supposed to look at the Speaker and not at Members who are perhaps weary.

The Prime Minister: Surely, Sir, maybe it did not soak into him so. May I just point out the difference? The Barisan Sosialis, on the other hand, have embarked on a different proposition. The common enemy is no longer British colonialism. It is the nationalists they intend to fight, not the British. Theirs is an anti-nationalist, not an anti-colonialist united front. When they say all progressive forces should unite to fight the reactionary and feudalistic forces of the Federation, what they really mean is that all those in favour of Communism should combine to down the Malay nationalists who rally round U.M.N.O. and the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman. Let me tell him where we stand. We the non-Communists support the Tunku because he represents the genuine will of the nationalists in Malaya. Differences in political policy, political philosophy and economic policy there are and always will be between a Party of non-Communist Socialists - the P.A.P. - and what the Tunku has called a party of the Right in U.M.N.O. and Alliance Parties. But on the nationalist issue - perhaps I should say on a national issue - of whether we should have a national democratic Malaya or a Communist Malaya, we have no hesitation in declaring which side we stand on. We stand on the side of the nationalist Malayans and we will prevent the Communists from undermining our society and the independence of our country.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Cheers!

The Prime Minister: Thank you, Sir. I believe the sincerity of the Member for Anson when he said, "Hear, hear!". Because he went through all this, but he had the disadvantage of having to go through first.

Mr David Marshall: I had you on this.

The Prime Minister: I hate to believe that I was such a wicked fellow. There were times when I did my best and he knew that. We both went down to Hock Lee to try and settle it. I tried. He tried. We thought we had succeeded. Four days later there were riots because Mr Fong Swee Suan got the directive not to settle. That is all. It is as simple as that.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I think he agrees with you.

The Prime Minister: Who? Yes, the Member for Anson nodded in agreement, Sir.

But let me remind the Barisan Sosialis that the united front is no longer against the British Raj. It is a completely different proposition fighting the Malayan nationalists. He has joined hands with the Communists not to hammer somebody who is dying and on the way out - British colonialism and British governors - but he is being foolhardy enough to try and take on the virile political forces that Malayan nationalism represents. It is a hazardous gamble that he has embarked on, and the least that we can wish him, Sir, is that his painful experience should be over as quickly as possible. The Member for Queenstown, and particularly the Member for Nee Soon, Sir, - he is a more intelligent man -

An hon. Member: A Rightist!

The Prime Minister: - know well the predicament into which their wrong assumptions have led them. The Member for Queenstown will recall the earnest conversations he had with me and the Minister for Finance in June this year during the Anson by-election. He was persuaded to believe, both by the British and by the Communists, that Mr Lim Chin Siong and his Communist friends would be given the free run of the place by the British provided they left the bases alone. This is the important point - provided they left the bases alone. And you will notice, Sir, through all the ups and downs about the British bases, never once did the Barisan Sosialis say, "Down with the British bases!" Because they have a little private understanding. Leave the bases alone and all will be well. And so we became the nationalists. The Tunku and I, we say, "Change from sovereign rights to treaty rights." The Barisan Sosialis say, "No. Carry on with internal self government. Sovereign rights to the British. Carry on with the bases." What kind of united front is this, combining with the British against the nationalists?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Who is selling?

The Prime Minister: Who is selling out whom to whom, Sir?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

The Prime Minister: In the midst of the crisis, they sought solace from the U.K. Commissioner. I say, Sir, without the slightest reluctance, that I have misjudged the quality of the U.K. Commissioner.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know what the Prime Minister is leading up to. But I do not think he should now go into the personality of the United Kingdom Commissioner.

The Prime Minister: No, I am very fond of personalities. Mr Speaker, Sir. This is a role which he plays with great -

An hon. Member: Elegance.

The Prime Minister: - aplomb. Considerable acumen on the part of the British Government. Not only did he lead Lim Ching Siong, S. Woodhull, James Puthucheary and Fong Swee Suan up the garden path - they had a tea party at Eden Hall, Sir. Somebody said it was the Garden of Eden Hall. You know what happens in the Garden of Eden, Sir. There was the apple and so on. Somebody said - [Interruption]. Yes. But whatever it was, the result was most unfortunate all round. And having done them in; having got this agreement - you know. British bases, do not touch, then all will be well - Mr Woodhull goes to the Naval Base and says. "Yes, we must have the bases. They look after the rights of the 40,000 workers. The bases must be there."

Sir, these are the great anti-colonial fighters. I do not know how they do these things. But they wound up in the end trying to form an alliance with the U.K. Commissioner against the Tunku and me and the nationalists. I do not know how they do this analysis, but I can assure the Member for Queenstown - although he does not understand these things - that his back-room boys completely misread and misconstrued the situation. Hence they are in serious trouble. I tell you why I believe they not only misread and misconstrued but arrogantly believed that they were still right after we had pointed out to them the error of their ways -

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): Who is arrogant?

The Prime Minister: That is the trouble, Sir. The bright chaps in the Barisan Sosialis. We told them that the U.K. Commissioner was taking them for a ride. I think this is a necessary bit of explanation of the merger proposals and the British bases why, fortunately, by this exercise around Eden Hall, we have had no trouble over the bases problem. They came to some kind of an entente cordiale that the bases should be left alone. So Mr MacMillan could say to the Tunku, "Even the Communists agree the bases should be left alone. Why are you troubling me about changing sovereign rights to treaty rights and so on? The extreme open front Communist leaders like Lim Chin Siong are quite happy with the bases. S. Woodhull, on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis, says, "Three cheers for ..." -

Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order, Sir. Is the Prime Minister still thinking that this place is Radio Singapore or Radio P.A.P.?

Mr Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order. Perhaps it is a point of elucidation.

The Prime Minister: Sir, one of the things the Member for Queenstown has to learn is that he has taken on a hazardous role. One of the things that an open front leader who is not a Communist has to learn when the Communists are getting into trouble and he is getting into trouble with them is to decide, first, not to betray the fact that they are in trouble; second, not to betray the fact that he is in trouble. He starts jumping around; then people will know that he is in trouble. It is bad propaganda. Obviously. Radio Singapore terrifies him and he hates to hear these things. But this is a factual analysis. Mr S. Woodhull went to the Naval Base in September and said, "Keep the bases." It was reported in the Press, and was confirmed by my friends and the Minister for Labour's friends in the Naval Base. So you see, Sir, no trouble about the bases. Instead, they started trouble with something else. We then said they were taken for a ride because how could they take power when we were asked to deal with them? That was the contradiction I could not reconcile. On the one hand, the Member for Queenstown believes all is well, they can take over, only leave the bases alone. On the other hand, we were told, "Look, do your duty and stop this running around like -"

Mr David Marshall: Point of clarification

The Prime Minister: Surely.

Mr David Marshall: This is fascinating. Would the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us who was telling him to put them in gaol?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to be so crude, Sir, - gaols and so on - they upset me. I do not think the U.K. Commissioner is such a crude man. He is a very polished gentleman. The Most Honourable the Earl of Selkirk -

Mr Rajah: An Oxford man!

The Prime Minister: - Oxford man, great elegance in manners and graceful ways, never suggested such things. He reminded us that it was our duty to maintain the security position and drew our attention to certain alarming prospects of the security position with Political Secretaries running around doing dangerous things. We told him that all was well provided everybody played their respective roles.

As I was explaining, Sir, we were asked to take on a role we were not supposed to play. However, having exposed all this, I said, "Look, this cannot be true." Then we exposed the plot, Sir, or half the plot, because there k a second half which is still to unravel itself. They did not believe it, Sir. Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr J. J. Puthucheary turned up at Eden Hall again after all this exposure, and shook the Lord Mayor of London by the hand warmly. I was told Mr James Puthucheary, most indiscreet man, saw the Earl of Selkirk and said, "Ah, Machiavelli," and shook his hand. Eight foreign correspondents were present, Sir,I listened to all this with great astonishment. All this was after the event. I had explained where they were wrong and they were so ignorant and arrogant -

Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Low Por Tuck: Is this relevant to the amendment?

Mr Speaker: I think possibly the Prime Minister is going into too great details in these matters. He can mention these instances in passing, but not too many details about shaking of hands and so on and so forth.

An hon. Member: Machiavelli!

The Prime Minister: The point I wanted to make, Sir, is this. We have been accused of being arrogant. But when we make a mistake we quickly learn and acknowledge it. We say, "Yes. Sorry we were wrong." But here we pointed out the error of their ways, and in utter arrogance they showed their aplomb. They went up to "Machiavelli" and shook his hand. I cannot understand, Sir. And I say I have misjudged the Earl of Selkirk. I thought him to be a simple country gentleman, Sir. But he is going -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think it is right for any Member to ridicule a representative of the United Kingdom in Singapore. The Prime Minster is very near to ridiculing the man.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am sorry I have given you the impression that I wanted to ridicule him. What I wanted to convey was - brought up as I am to believe that all people in tweed suits talk in the intonation of the English-educated squire - that he was a very simple straightforward man. I heard him talk and I saw him dress - so elegant and, graceful. I did not know, Sir, that he was an extremely skilful diplomat. This is the bouquet I want to hand him today, that not only he had done them in, but he had got them to shake his hand after that. I say that you really delivered the coup de grace and the man said 'Thank you' to you.

Sir, from this major error of judgment stems a whole host of terrible consequences. After the joint statement on the establishment of Malaysia by the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and of the Federation of Malaya, any faint hope there may have been of a Communist assumption of power by the-manipulation of open lawful parties, like the Barisan Sosialis, has disappeared.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Leader of the House has a business motion.

7.17 p.m.