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

Debate resumed.

7.21 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, from the Communist point of view, whatever happens now, they are in trouble. At one time, they hoped that if the P.A.P. could be voted out of office, there could be general elections and a confused situation created. As a result of such confusion, even if they could not win the elections, no coherent and strong government would emerge, and merger would be thwarted for the time being. Their back-room dialectical analysts must be naive if they believe this any more. In the light of events since the publication of Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961 - in particular, the joint statement of the Malayan and British Prime Ministers - all prudent and wise men can see the shape of things to come. Whatever the alterations in the constellation, I do not see the red star of the Barisan Sosialis in the ascendant.

At a meeting of the Sembawang Branch of the Barisan Sosialis on 27th October, Mr Woodhull stated that the P.A.P. had only another two years to go. After that, he believed that the Barisan Sosialis would deal with us. Sir, I have a premonition that long before Mr Woodhull reaches the time when he can vent his frustration on the people who obtained his release from prison, he might well be in a predicament worse than he was before 5th June, 1959, when he was released on our insistence. As the Minister for Finance has said, in a zugzwang situation in chess, any move the Member for Queenstown makes still leads to a checkmate. There are three forces that could checkmate the pro-Communist groups, the Barisan Sosialis, Party Ra'ayat, the Communist-controlled union like the General Employees Union, the student clubs, the old boys' associations and the cultural bodies. First, there is the castle representing the forces of the Federation of Malaya. Second, there is the bishop representing the forces of the British Government. And third, the knight representing the Singapore Government. What the bishop wants to do is to get the knight to do the checkmate, but as in Alice in Wonderland, the pieces on the chess-board move of their own volition, and the knight is unwilling to do the checkmate, because either the castle or the bishop can more quickly and decisively settle the game. The time is fast approaching for those who in July decided to take the Communist bandwagon shortcut to fame and glory, to show how well they can take it. Those who cannot take it, Sir, may find the next 18 months to June 1963 a long and harrowing process.

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

The Prime Minister: Division, Sir.

7.29 p.m.

The House divided: Ayes, 17; Noes 32; Absent, 2. Ayes. Noes. Bani. S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Lee Siew Choh. Buang Bin Omar Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Byrne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Eng Guan. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy. G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Absent. Noes-contd. Ahmad Jabri bin Mammen, John. Mohammad Akib. Mohd. Ali bin Koh, C. H. Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M.Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: The Question now is,

"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."

As I have indicated earlier on, the debate may range over the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, that is to say,

'That 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.',

as well as that part of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which deals with merger, and along with that the amendment to the Address of Thanks standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown, which reads:

'"at end, to add -

'but regrets that the Government is pursuing a "merger" policy of unequal rights contrary to the interests of the people of the two territories, and urges the Government to re-orientate its policy in conformity with the ardent desires of the people for genuine unification'."'.

The hon. Member for Farrer Park has indicated that he will be moving an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion. It might be convenient if he makes his speech now and moves his amendment. The suggestion I will make then is that the debate should also range over the hon. Member's amendment. So the effect will be that all Members will have one speech until the very end, when the Hon, the Minister for Labour who moved the original motion will be given an opportunity to reply. I trust that is clear - one speech for all Members except the Minister for Labour who will be given an opportunity to reply. Also, the Member for Queenstown will not be able to speak any longer -

The Prime Minister: Thank God!

Mr Speaker: - on these motions because he did speak on all aspects of the three motions when he made his speech.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of clarification, Sir. But this is a new amendment. I understand a new amendment is coming up.

Mr Speaker: Yes. When the Member for Farrer Park moves his amendment, I think I will permit the Member for Queenstown to make his comments, but strictly on the amendment, because he has had his opportunity of speaking to the three motions which are now before the House.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. When the Leader of the House, without consulting other Opposition leaders, moved this motion of his, he mentioned items 1 and 3, but not 5.

Mr Speaker: That is, only procedural, because it has already been agreed that the debate should range over items 1, 3, :and that aspect of merger contained in item 5. Of course, at the end of the debate, votes will be taken only on items 1 and 3. The vote on the amendment by the Member for Queenstown will only be taken simpliciter; then the motion on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which has been moved by the Prime Minister. That arrangement, I think, was arrived at by consent of the House.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Point of further clarification from you, Sir. What about the non-merger part of the motion in item 5?

Mr Speaker: That will be entered upon when the motion is moved. The motion on item 5 will not be moved today. There will be no vote on item 5. I trust I have made myself clear. The motion on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech will be moved on some other day. There will be no debate today on other parts of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which do not touch on merger. It is only the merger part which will be debated today. I trust that is clear.

There is another point which the Clerk has reminded me of, that the question on the amendment which the Member for Farrer Park proposes to move will not be put by me until item 3 is formally proposed to the House by the Prime Minister at the end of the debate. It is just a procedural formality.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, can you please let us know further? You do realise that tomorrow we have a debate coming on, and if we carry on too late today, what happens? We cannot even go home to rest and sleep and wake up tomorrow!

Mr Speaker: That is completely out of my hands. I myself will have to come at half-past two. This is not the making of the Chair. It is done -

Mr David Marshall: By the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker: - correctly under the Standing Orders. If Opposition Members have not been consulted, that is no concern of mine. [Interruption]. Order.

7.42 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion in itself, standing in the name of the Minister for Labour, is actually what all the political Parties in Singapore are committed to. But we have had a lengthy debate over the last 10 to 12 days on that, and the amendment to that, merely because, in my view, the problem had not been put in its proper perspective. Because of that, an amendment had been moved and, in our view, moved not bona fide but with a political intent, in the sense that the Member for Anson had used the word "political", and therefore we opposed the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we on the Front benches on the Opposition feel that the ultimate goal is a complete merger. I use the word "complete", Mr Speaker, Sir, because the word "merger" in itself should mean "complete merger". But there has been such a lot of confusion over the use of the words "complete merger", "partial merger", "P.A.P. merger", "phoney merger", "genuine merger", that the word "merger" has become so confused that it has taken on a peculiar meaning of its own over the last 12 days, so that I think we might speak of "complete merger' in the sense of a complete integration of Singapore with the Federation, as in the sense that Johore or Perak or Selangor is integrated with the Federation. It is in that sense that "complete merger" will be used by me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the position is that all the political Parties are committed to ultimate merger or complete merger, or whatever you may like to call it, then the question arises: what is the opportune moment to bring about such a merger? That would depend entirely upon the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation. If both Governments are agreed that there should be a complete merger, then complete merger will take place.

7.45 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr Rajah: But if both Governments do not agree upon a complete merger do we then say, "Let the time come, let the opportunity arise when complete merger can be effected." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think it would be wrong if both the Governments took that line, because I feel that the longer the situation is kept as it is today, the longer the time it takes for a complete merger to be effected, the more difficult will the situation become. It could well be, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that if we do not take some sort of action at the moment it would be possible that during the next five or ten years, even any sort of association with the Federation might become difficult, if not impossible. It is on that basis, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I welcome the White Paper on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make this point very clear. In my opinion, the proposals before the House are not a merger in the sense that I have thought merger was. The Prime Minister has mentioned that the word "merger" could mean this. If he says it means that to him, it is not for me to deny it. But to me, and to quite a lot of people in Singapore, merger means quite a different thing. May I respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that, in so far as this particular problem is concerned, it is not what the Prime Minister himself feels what merger is but what the people of Singapore feel what merger is that really is the problem? Mr Deputy Speaker, to the people of Singapore, merger means Singapore coming together with the Federation of Malaya in the sense that Johore, Selangor and Perak are merged in and with the Federation. Although the policy of the S.P.A. was ultimately committed to merger, the S.P.A. felt that in the present context of Singapore and in the present context of feelings in the Federation, a merger was not possible. Therefore, we propounded the political philosophy that, for the moment, the most desirable objective for Singapore and the Federation of Malaya was to come together in some sort of a political association. We call this a confederation under which Singapore citizens would remain Singapore citizens and Federal citizens would remain Federal citizens. Singapore would voluntarily give up some of its sovereignty to the Federal Parliament. On that basis, we run a confederation Government, with local autonomy in all matters of which the Singapore Government felt it should retain control. In that connection, we welcome the inclusion of the Bornean territories in this confederation, in order to make it not only one political unit but also a larger economic unit within' which this confederation could work and survive.

The proposition of the Government set Out in its White Paper, Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest, is not a merger, nor is it, in my opinion, a confederation. It is a mixture of the two. But I think it does not really matter whether it is a merger, a confederation of what sort of political title one can give to this particular White Paper. But the point is that it has been possible for the Federation Government and the Singapore Government to come to some agreement which is a working possibility and which will, at the moment, be acceptable to the people of the Federation of Malaya and, I think, to a large majority of the people in Singapore. On that basis, we welcome the White Paper proposals. I do not wish to enlarge on the contents of the White Paper. I think the contents of the White Paper - all the emotional aspects of it and all the aspects to which there was opposition from the Barisan Sosialis - have been adequately dealt with in connection with the amendment which we have been discussing over the last 10 or 12 days. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with that matter in great detail.

The emotional aspect of citizenship, namely, whether a Singapore citizen is a first-class citizen or a second-class citizen and whether a Singapore citizen equates to a Federal citizen, has been, I think, adequately dealt with. The Hon. the Prime Minister has supplied all the answers, which I think should alleviate all the fears on that aspect. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not propose personally to dwell on the contents of the White Paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in order to put this debate in proper focus, I said, when I was speaking on the amendment, that I would move an amendment to item 3. The amendment would merely mean that the White Paper proposals were "an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger". I think the Parties in Singapore - and by Parties I mean the political Parties - are committed to complete merger. There has been no dispute in this House on that. In my own view, the White Paper that is now being placed before the House is a practical proposition. As an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger, I welcome the White Paper proposals. It is on that basis that we have objected to the amendment of the Member for Queenstown and that we now support the main motion, together with all the allied motions which are now being discussed by this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to take up much time moving this amendment. We have a very heavy day ahead tomorrow, and I do not wish to speak very much. I think Members opposite the Opposition benches and behind the Front bench Opposition would like to speak more about this and get further clarification. For myself, I feel that the question of a grant of $90 million, which was troubling the Member for Anson, has been adequately discussed. So far as I was concerned, Mr Deputy Speaker, I had no qualms about that, because I knew that under these arrangements, certain Singapore services would become Federal services. It is hardly right that the Federation was going to pay for these services out of its own Budget. It must come out of the Singapore Budget. Therefore, it is necessary, from the budgetary point of view, that monies from Singapore should be transferred to the Federal budget in order to cover the Federal services. As to the balance of the $12 million, the Prime Minister has said that it is possibly for the defence of the country, which, at the moment, is undertaken by Great Britain without cost to Singapore. Therefore, I think the two points which were worrying the House, or some part of the House - i.e., citizenship and the $90 million grant being made by the Singapore Government to the Federation Government - have been adequately answered. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not take up very much more the time of the House except formally to move the amendment to item 3.

I move,

After "That" in line I to insert the words "as an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger".

I have here typed copies of the amendment which I now hand to the Clerk.

Typed copies of amendment handed in to the Clerk.

7.58 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: As I have indicated, the question on the amendment moved by the Member for Farrer Park will not now be proposed by the Chair. Firstly, it could not be proposed by the Chair because the main motion [i.e., item 3] has not yet been moved. Secondly, the idea behind Members being given an indication what the amendment is to enable them from now on to debate the implications of that amendment, so that at the end of the debate, I shall take, firstly, the vote on item 1; secondly, I will call upon the Prime Minister or any Minister to move the motion shown in item 3. When that is moved simpliciter, I shall put the amendment simpliciter to the House for a vote. After the amendment has been disposed of, I shall put the Prime Minister's motion, as amended, as the case may be, to the House simpliciter for a vote. That is when the proceedings will end. There will be no vote today on item 5. I trust that is clear.

Perhaps I had better explain a little further. The Deputy Speaker has drawn my attention to the fact that perhaps Members do not appreciate that the debate from now on must be on merger, but other than the aspect of merger which has already been debated, by reason of the amendment which has been moved by the Member for Queenstown to item 1, and which has now been disposed of. There must not be any repetition of the arguments which have already been advanced on the questions of merger and citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day. I trust that is clear.

8.00 p.m.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express regret for the motion moved by the Minister for Labour. I think the P.A.P. will not have moved this motion if it has not lost its faith in the future. It wants to trap the people. It has been inconsistent. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have reason to say that the P.A.P. Government is not tabling this motion for its prestige but that it has other motives. This is because the P.A.P. Government has been arrogant in its attitude. It often says that its Party leaders are the most clever people in the world. They have not consulted the people on any big question.

As regards the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation, the P.A.P. has boasted about it. We always hear the Government say that the P.A.P. has full authority to deal with the merger question. The Government has always been saying that it has a mandate for merger from the people in the general election of 1959. In fact, the merger which was supported by the people in 1959 is not the same as the one now proposed by the Government. The Government says that it has full authority to deal with the merger question. Then why does it want our support? Perhaps it has realised that its merger is a phoney merger, and one that is intended to sell out the interests of the people.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have had quite enough of the allegation that this is a sell-out merger or a phoney merger. We have dealt with that. If the hon. Member wishes just to say that in passing, well, say it in passing, but do not go into further details.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my intention in saying it is to prove that the motion proposed by the Government is superfluous. The P.A.P. Government tries to place the responsibility on this House. It wants to stifle the people before it does these things. Then it can have the excuse that the House have supported its motion. That is its motive for tabling the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that I am duty bound to advise the Government that if it realises the mistakes it has made, then it should rectify them. The Chairman of our Party, the Barisan Sosialis, has said that the Government should realise its mistakes and mend its ways. In short, my colleagues and I cannot support these weak principles of merger. The Chairman of our Party has also said that we must judge the Government by its acts and not by its words. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has been in power for two years, but what it has done has disappointed us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the freedom-loving people of Singapore have their own correct stand on merger. This motion is intended to lay down a trap on our way to merger. It is an obstacle in our way to true merger. That is why I regret that the Minister for Labour should have tabled this motion. The P.A.P. has raised this motion because it has lost faith in its future. The discontentment of the people has spread all over Singapore. Because of this, the P.A.P. Government has come to the House asking for support of its merger proposals. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel it is not right for the Government to use undemocratic methods to try and maintain its position.

Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of order. Let us get down to the motion. This has got nothing to do with merger at all. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. What the hon. Member for Stamford has, in fact, indicated is that the motion as a motion is unnecessary, and therefore she is speaking against it on those lines.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): The duty of a government is to protect the lives and interests of the people and to see that the country progresses and advances, and not to safeguard the interests and positions of a few people, if our Government can neither protect the interests of the masses nor see that the country progresses and prospers, but just looks after the interests of a few people, then it has no right to continue governing the country. It must resign. It must not try to evade its responsibility.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: No.

Mr Speaker: The Member is not giving way.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): The Minister for Finance can speak later on. If the P.A.P. Government tries to play about with this disreputable thing, and it is incapable of working for the interests of the people, then it must resign -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have allowed the Member for Stamford to go on for quite some time on matters which perhaps are a bit far away from the motion. I have always allowed exordiums, but they must come to an end sometime. Now I ask the Member to come back to the motion we are debating.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I abide by your ruling. I only want to show the insincerity of the P.A.P. in tabling this motion. I have said earlier that it wants to lay down a trap on the path to true merger. If there is nothing else the P.A.P. can do except to play about with this phoney merger, then it should resign and come back to face the people. Let this question be decided by the people - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. We are having a battle of the female sex again! May I remind the hon. Member for Stamford that we have had this argument earlier on when we were debating the amendment? So let us try to keep away from the same arguments as far as possible. In fact, if the same arguments are advanced, then I must stop them.

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

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged. Mr Speaker, Sir, is it permissible in the midst of a Member's speech to move a motion under certain orders of the Standing Orders? I have in mind Standing Order No. 24.

Mr Speaker: No, I do not think a motion that the debate be now adjourned can be interposed when a Member is speaking. That, I think, should be moved - I am only speaking from recollection - at the end of any speech that is being made.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if a Party is not capable of doing something good for the people, then it must go back to the people. The Government must go back to the people -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have ruled that the Member for Stamford was pursuing a line of argument that is not related to the debate. In her last five or six sentences, she was still pursuing that same line. Mr Speaker, Sir, time is short, we do not want to carry on till tomorrow morning - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: - but if the Member for Stamford persists in reading from a text prepared by her ghost writers, then I suggest the Floor could be given to somebody who can make a contribution to the debate.

Mr David Marshall: You deserve it!

Mr Speaker: Order. It would appear that the Member for Stamford is straying from the motion. I am trying to bring her back to the motion and I can assure the Minister that I am watching the proceedings very closely.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the defects of the government. I was saying that the Party has no right to represent the people in this House. The Government has no -

Mr Speaker: That is an opinion which the hon. Member, perhaps, holds very dear to her heart, but I do not think we can allow that trend of argument to develop in this particular debate. When we debate the Budget and during the days that are before us when we debate the Estimates, she will have an opportunity to attack Ministry by Ministry.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Then I will leave this to the debate on the Budget. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the impression that because of our different stands, therefore, we have different outlooks too. Whatever we do or say must be different too. An anti-people Party is different from a Party which works for the interests of the people -

Mr Speaker: Order. Could the hon. Member reserve all those comments until such time as is convenient during the Budget debate, because those convenient have nothing to do with merger? The fact that the hon. Member thinks that the Party in power should not govern and should resign I do not think arises now on this particular motion, which is on merger and, allied to that, on the White Paper giving details of the proposed merger. Those are the two items we should debate, not whether the Government is a good government or, a bad government. Of course, the hon. Member may say the Government is a bad government. But that is all. She should not now debate as to why the Government, she thinks, is a bad government.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if there had been no interjections, then I would not have taken very long to deliver my speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that the proposition made by the Prime Minister that external affairs, defence and internal security be vested in the Federation Government, while Singapore have autonomy in education and labour, is a deception. It is meant to deceive the people. The autonomy is a sham -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes. Sir, the hon. Member was suggesting that the Prime Minister is cheating the people. Is this parliamentary language, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I think I heard the word "deceive". It was interpreted as "deceive". I should imagine that that word has been used time and again in this Assembly from both sides, and I have come to the conclusion that it is an attribute of a politician to deceive.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Wasting Government money!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think we have a translator who is versed in parliamentary language in his box upstairs.

Mr Low Por Tuck: So your Chinese is not up to standard?

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Lady has been misinterpreted, I am sure she will be the first one to say she has been misinterpreted. She may not be satisfied with the word "deceive".

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): The Minister can wait for his turn.

Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that without any political right, then any safeguard is not guaranteed. For example, the strike at Robinson's. The Government, on a political pretext -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: I have not got it yet, Mr Minister. [Laughter] Order. I think the Hon, the Minister must not be in a hurry when the speech is being interpreted. I myself do not know what has been said. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to repeat that part of her speech?

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that the proposition by the Prime Minister that after merger, defence, external affairs and internal security will be in the hands of the Federation Government, while the Singapore Government will have autonomy in labour and education, is not safe. If we do not have a political safeguard, I think any autonomy will be useless. For example, not long ago, in the strike at Robinson's, the Government used the police -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Lady is right now in going into a completely different matter. She should not go into details like that. If I allow that, then there will be a debate whether that strike was legal, whether the use of force by the Government was correct or not. I do not think we ought to go into those details. Let us come back to the pure and simple proposition that there should be merger between Singapore and the Federation, and that the merger should be as shown in the White Paper. That is all we are debating now.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point or order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. We want to get through this business as quickly as possible. There is a lot of work tomorrow, but the Barisan have come -

An hon. Member: What is the point of order?

Mr Speaker: Order. The point of order being?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: My point is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Where people are reading a prepared text and where they are -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow that interjection as a point of order at all. I do not think it is fair to say that the Member for Stamford has, in fact, been reading, because prepared texts have always been placed on the Table and on the ledges in all parts of this House. Let the hon. Lady continue her speech. If she is wandering too far away, I think the Minister could trust the Chair to bring her back.

Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order again?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of order. As the hon. Lady is speaking on the opposite side, we do not wish to interrupt. In fact, I think we should encourage ladies in this House to talk -

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Another hon. Member: Go on!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: But perhaps Members of the House -

Mr Speaker: Could I have the point of order?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes. Could I draw attention to our Standing Order No. 54, which says:

'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance ...' -

Mr David Marshall: Are you the Speaker?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: - 'or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.'

Mr Speaker: I think the Speaker knows that Standing Order perhaps better than the Leader of the House -

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: - and I think he can rely on the Speaker to exercise his authority if he thinks it is the proper thing to do.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in this way the Government can make use of political excuses to use the police to deal with strikers and deprive the -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not like to interrupt Members, especially Lady Members, but I have already indicated that we must not go into details of this nature in this particular debate, when we are dealing with two points - one is merger and the other is the type of merger as shown in the White Paper. Those are the only two points. If the hon. Lady has anything to say about the conduct of the Government in using the police against the strike, the opportunity will present itself when we come to debate the Estimates under the heading of Police.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this has something to do with the merger proposed by the Government in the White Paper. Although we have autonomy in labour and education, we say that this type of autonomy is a deception, because without political backing, everything is deceit. What I want to say is very short. I want to illustrate and explain that if the Government says that employees and strikers are made use of by the Communists and they can be arrested, therefore, this type of autonomy is not reliable. Therefore, I say this merger is phoney and deceives the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, since I cannot talk in great detail, my criticism on autonomy in labour and education ends here.

Another thing is that autonomy in education is also not true at all. If they say that the schools are controlled by Communists or that there are pro-Communists in the schools, then the Government can close them. This is a political question. At the same time, they can point out which teacher is a Communist agent or a pro-Communist and arrest him. Therefore, autonomy in education is not reliable. I want to illustrate this with an example. Autonomy in labour and education is just like fishing by the sea-side. If the fish are attracted by the worm and they take a bite, they are hooked. If the people of Singapore are treated as fish by the Singapore Government and they think that autonomy in labour and education is good, then I am afraid that the P.A.P. proposals on merger are a bait. But I believe the people are very clear in their minds and they will not fall into the trap.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister to show that we cannot support the P.A.P. type of merger. In a Press conference, he referred to our powers and rights after merger. This has convinced us more not to trust the P.A.P. type of merger. On 12th November a publication appeared in the Sin Chew Jit Poh: to the effect that the Prime Minister stated that Singapore citizens enjoy privileges in Singapore and that Federation citizens enjoy privileges in the Federation.

Mr Speaker: Order. If I allow the Member to carry on in this strain, we are going right back to the debate on citizenship. I think we have had a great deal of argument for and against Singapore citizenship, Federal citizenship and citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens. So this line of argument is repeating an argument which has been advanced, I think - I cannot remember exactly which day it was - about eight days ago.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the difficulty now is this. We feel that it is a phoney merger, but they say that it is a true merger. I want to prove that it is a phoney merger. Therefore, I must quote some examples to prove that. But since you do not permit me to quote an example, I will not say any more. I have some opinion on this type of merger.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member does not think I am stopping her unnecessarily. We have already debated a merger as against a genuine merger. I think there have been many speeches from Members of the Opposition saying that the merger which is suggested in the White Paper is not a genuine merger. The suggestion is that it is a phoney merger. We have debated that already.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we still hear the Government saying that the PAP, type of merger is beneficial to the people and that it is a true merger. But my opinion of the P.A.P. type of merger is this. There are three characteristics in the P.A.P. The first is deceit. If they cannot deceive, then they will threaten. If they cannot threaten, then they will try to manoeuvre. These are their three characteristics. I have already said -

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now conversing with lady Members opposite. I think if she just looks at the Speaker, he will be very pleased. He will listen to her as carefully as he can.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to speak any more because a lot has already been said. There may be more speeches on the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The P.A.P. type of merger is not a good one and is not beneficial to the people. Therefore, I oppose the motion of the Minister for Labour.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 24, I wish to move,

"That the debate be now adjourned."

The Deputy Prime Minister, who glories under the name of the Leader of the House, has, without consulting the Opposition, presumed in a most undemocratic and unconstitutional fashion to move the suspension of Standing Orders after his Prime -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of order, Sir, I think you have just ruled that when I moved the motion for the adjournment it was according to Standing Orders and I strongly protest against the words "undemocratic and unconstitutional" used by the Member for Anson.

Mr Speaker: The point is well taken because the motion to exempt these items from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 was properly made under the Assembly Standing Orders, and therefore it can never be considered as unconstitutional.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. You are aware that there are constitutional and democratic traditions surrounding the discharge of the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. He is not merely the minion of his Party. He is supposed to -

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow language of this nature. I think all the hon. Member can confine himself to is the motion. "That the debate be now adjourned." He should give reasons why he thinks the debate be now adjourned. I think it is not a proper reason if he alleges that the motion to suspend Standing Order No. 1 is an undemocratic and unconstitutional move. That is not the reason why he wishes this debate to be adjourned. Let us confine ourselves to the motion.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Prime Minister just finishing his four-hour speech. He has had all the headlines. We were entitled to expect, Sir, that we would be able to digest at least some parts of it, because though there was much clowning there was some sense and in certain parts there was, to my mind, considerable important clarification of a very ambiguous White Paper - matters that it was vital to consider if they had any respect for their own Prime Minister; instead of giving us an opportunity to consider what was a very lengthy speech and what, I should hope from their point of view at least was more than mere clowning, was of some importance in what their Prime Minister had to say - he happens to be our Prime Minister too - and giving us an opportunity to understand and perhaps to reorient our way of thinking. It is not a matter of the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis. There are other Parties on this side of the House. There are other persons who can he persuaded even though the P.A.P. believes that this House is nothing but machinery in order to enlarge their voice to the public. I say, Sir, it is barbaric at this juncture to seek -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to say that anything which has been done by a Member of this Assembly is barbaric. I think he ought to modulate his language and withdraw that word.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I use the word "steamroller", because that is what is happening? We have had a sitting past midnight only two nights ago. The Members of the Government Front Bench earn Government salaries. They do not have to look after anything else. They can attend here and maybe sleep in the mornings; I do not know.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that is quite relevant. Let us have some reasons why the present debate should he adjourned.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, most of us have our duties to discharge and require the normal quota of sleep for normal human beings. [Laughter] Sir, I see one of the Ministers finds it highly amusing that we are normal human beings on this side and not on the P.A.P.'s side.

Sir, it is unreasonable, so shortly after one of these lengthy sittings, to seek indirectly on a matter of such vital importance - where their own Prime Minister has stated at the very beginning of his speech that he resisted your efforts to limit the speeches because he did not want any limitation on the length of the speeches or the number of speakers - to bring about an all-night sitting, not merely to limit the number of speeches but to render their impact as well as their quality almost negative.

Sir, I am moving this motion in the hope at least that those who have free consciences and are not under the whip of the P.A.P. will vote for it as a protest against the undemocratic steamroller of the P.A.P. I say that this House should adjourn now in a civilised fashion and that this debate should be resumed in due course after the Budget debate.

Question proposed.

8.45 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. have always prided themselves on the fact that they want to abide by the Queens-berry Rules. You have a perfect example of Siamese boxing. As the Member for Anson has just said, we had a midnight sitting only a couple of nights back. During this very important merger debate, all sorts of interjections have come in so that attention might be directed away from it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that is relevant to' the motion now. The hon. Member can give reasons why he thinks the debate should be adjourned.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: As the Member for Anson has also said, there is no consultation with Opposition Members as regards what is happening inside this Assembly. In parliamentary practice, it is only fair, Sir, that if they want to have an extension of the debate, there should be the normal friendly, or if not so friendly then at least decent, behaviour on the part of the Government. It is only right, Sir, that they should consider other points of view, to say nothing of you, Sir.

Mr David Marshall: And the staff.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: This is definitely riot an example of parliamentary democracy as Western countries know it.

The Prime Minister: I thought you despise them.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Tomorrow we have a very important debate coming, and as it is, we have not been given much time to study things coming over from the Government -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir,Is the Member questioning the fact that we did not give the appropriate notice as required by Standing Orders? Is he questioning that all these rules on debate, motions, three clear days' notice, have not been complied with?

Mr Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member ever said that. All he said was that he was not given sufficient time, I suppose, by reason of this prolonged debate on merger. If he had said that, then, of course, he is completely wrong, because the correct time according to Standing Orders has been given.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I understand that, Sir. Although, on the surface, the rules have been observed, nevertheless the fact is that we have not been given time to study all the motions and the Budget Statement. As you know, Sir, we have been here every afternoon debating and listening to speeches and we have not been given enough time to study and give of our best -

The Prime Minister: You mean it was not your best.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - on the subject. Of course, Sir, the Prime Minister has the whole civil service to help him, The Thomsons, Meadows -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that is completely irrelevant to the motion. But I ask the Members of the Government Benches not to interject because this is a complaint made by an Opposition Member. There is a motion that the debate be now adjourned. Let us hear why the debate should be now adjourned.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: As you know, Sir, and as the Member for Anson has said, we are normal human beings on this side of the House and we need rest. Surely the Government do not hope that we will easily gloss over things and let them pass. The Members of the Government - especially the Front Benchers - are drawing fat salaries.

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us not go into that. Perhaps the Hon. Member might allege that Government Front Benchers have more time than Opposition Benchers. I think that is as far as we can go, but not to allege about fit salaries. It is completely irrelevant.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There is another factor. Sir. Government Benchers have cars to take them home easily. There are quite a number of us on this side of the House who do not have travelling facilities to go back home.

An hon. Member: You have.

The Prime Minister: Come off it!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The bus service stops at certain hours, Sir, and it is only fair that people who do not have huge limousines, air-conditioned cars, be allowed an opportunity -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think all these details are completely irrelevant. Let us come to the motion. Let us have detailed reasons why the debate should be adjourned.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Of course, I might add that quite a number of us do not have any person to tag along for our protection.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir. Is the Member alleging that he is being intimidated, that he will be waylaid in some dark alley?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. The point of order which I myself have raised is that all this is irrelevant.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the Government is trying to create an artificial tension of urgency and, in so doing, it hopes that we will not have enough time for the debate which is coming on. We have to take time to deliberate on national matters. If the Prime Minister wants to rush things through quickly, then obviously he is trying to hide something. At the present moment, Sir, quite a number of us did not have tiffin coming here and although -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir. Is it proper for the Member to allege quite unjustly and without truth that he was prevented from eating his tiffin?

Mr David Marshall: He did not say so.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has not said that. He has indicated that he has been so busy with matters connected with the Assembly that he did not have the time to eat. That is how I understood him.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we do not have time to drink beer around here.

An hon. Member: I think you ought to try it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, Sir, it is very unreasonable for the Government to impose these long sittings on the people.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Why?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If they want to debate things properly, let them do so in the normal democratic way. That is the only way to prove that we are having a semblance - I know that we do not have it - of parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister is a great boaster, Sir.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is regrettable that the Member for Queenstown is not like his colleague, the Member for Stamford. He was not here to listen to his colleague's speech. As the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis, he should have as much courage as she has and debate the question now. He is the so-called fighter of the people. We must pay attention to the motion before us. It concerns the people of Singapore and Malaya. The motion was not raised yesterday but two or three weeks ago. The Opposition Members should have made a detailed study of this motion. When we move for the extension of the sitting, they oppose us. This is not reasonable.

It will be remembered that when the P.A.P. were in the City Council in 1957 -

Mr Speaker: Order. On the main motion, so far the hon. Lady is in order. Bui we are debating why the debate should be adjourned, and nothing further.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): I wanted to say just now that in the past we sat through the night until this next morning and we never felt tired. This question concerns the people o Singapore and the Federation. Is it wrong to extend this sitting? Perhaps some Opposition Members have had no time to prepare their speeches for this debate, and they want to go back to have them written out by their back-room boys.

Mr David Marshall: Not me.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is no need for an interpreter to interpret my speech, then I will speak very strongly. I want to criticise the party very severely, but because of the interpretation I have to speak slowly. When I speak slowly, it does not mean that I am not angry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Legislative Assembly is a body which reflects the views of the people. It is not an instrument for the Party in power. Assemblymen are elected representatives of the people. They are not elected because they are clever or they can speak eloquently for so many hours, but because they can express the views of the people. The people want the elected Assemblymen to convey their views to this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, the representatives are elected not because they can do everything but because they can loyally and honestly speak in the interest or the people. Therefore, in debating this important question which concerns the future of 1,600,000 people of Singapore, and 7,000,000 people of the Federation, the Government should listen to the views of the representatives of the people. The Government should patiently listen to the views of the people of Singapore. Why is the Government, which professes to represent the people, afraid to listen to their views?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): On a point of order, Sir. Just now the Member for Upper Serangoon accused us of being afraid to listen to the -

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order. It is a point of argument which the Prime Minister can advance later on. I was on the point of getting up just now because it seemed to me that the Member for Upper Serangoon was straying away from the debate. We want to know why the Opposition think that the debate should be adjourned. I think the Member has made his point and he should not enlarge on it.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this House should adjourn now, and then after the debate on the Budget we can resume the debate on this motion. I do not see any reason why this will do any harm to the question of merger. We ought to know that Singapore and the Federation have been separated for 16 years and there are many complicated problems after the separation which deserve our careful consideration.

We received the White Paper less than a month ago. We should have longer time to make a study of its proposals. If the White Paper put up by the Government has nothing sinister in it, then they should allow us longer time to debate this problem and in greater detail. The Party in power should not -

The Prime Minister: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. If, as the Member has alleged, they were not ready for a debate on the Command Paper, then why did the leader of the Barisan Sosialis insist on and finally get this House to agree to all the motions being discussed together?

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. That is an argument which the Prime Minister can advance.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of Greater Malaysia, the Tunku wishes to set up a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain the views of the people in Borneo and to decide ways of bringing about a merger, so as to avoid racial disharmony. On this question, the Party in power should be more democratic. We do not mean to say, as alleged by the Government, that we have not prepared the texts of our speeches. The question is this: Since the Prime Minister, as the chief spokesman of the Government, has spoken at length for the Government, we as representatives of the people should express our views on his speech. If we ask for an adjournment in order to modify our speeches to accord with the wishes of the people, then there is nothing wrong in that. This can only make this House a more democratic body and reflect the people's views. I want to tell the Government Benchers that their rough behaviour will make a laughing stock of the parliamentary democratic system and bring about serious consequences to it. I hope Members on the Government side will carefully consider this and accept our suggestion to adjourn the debate now.

9.06 p.m.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo (Bras Basah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we want to carry on with the debate tonight because we are debating an issue which is of great concern to the interests of the people of Singapore. The Member for Queenstown has said that he is hungry, and could not carry on with the debate. But he could have asked a servant to buy food for him to eat. As he is a doctor, he could not get sick just by taking this meal. It would riot happen. I heard the Member for Upper Serangoon say just now that our behaviour has been rough. I have never seen anything of that sort. We have never tried to beat him up. Therefore, I can only throw back at him his words, this so-called behaviour.

Mr Speaker: rose -

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): I remember the students of Nanyang University told me that -

Mr Speaker: Order. When the Speaker is on his feet, the Member must keep silent.

I do not think what the hon. Lady is saying has anything to do with this motion. She has said that the debate should go on while the Opposition has said that it should be adjourned. Let us stick to that aspect of it, because the Speaker also has not eaten.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member was accusing the Government side of rough behaviour. That is why I want to say that we have not been rough. Rather, he is the one who has been rough.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps they cannot get the views of the people in one right. Or perhaps they have other motives for proposing the adjournment of the debate-to go home and seek help from their backseat drivers, because in this short space of time they cannot gather the views of the people - [Interruption]

I ask our former colleagues, now the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen, not to interrupt my speech. They can speak after I have spoken. Let me tell them that if they want to follow the socialist line -

Mr Low Por Tuck: Point of order, Sir. Is it proper for the Leader of the House to be yawning all the time?

Mr Speaker: Order. I myself have been yawning, so I trust I have not been out of order. Of course, there have been occasions when Parliamentarians have fallen asleep! Then they get out of order when they snore!

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we should continue with the debate tonight I remember the time when I was in the City Council. We debated till the next morning. Therefore, from this we know that they are not really seeking the adjournment to gather the views of the people. In asking for an adjournment they really have some other motive. We can see they are a pitiful lot in this respect.

Mr Speaker: May I suggest that if we go on in this way, we will have 51 speeches on this particular motion. If the debate on this particular motion goes on until 4 o'clock in the morning then we will not have time to go on at all if the motion is to be completed.

9.10 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government Benchers cannot say I look tired because I had about ten hours of good sleep last night! The Government Benchers can neither say that I am hungry, because I had two meals between 5 and 9 o'clock, since somebody gave me a treat! Nor can the Government Benchers say that I need a ghost writer to write my speeches because I have read through the White Paper several times.

But, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the sake of parliamentary democracy, I ask the Government to adjourn the debate today because this is making a farce of democracy. In previous instances, where Standing Orders were suspended, they were bona fide cases. For instances, when the Government was toppling on the motion of no confidence, or last week when there was a motion on the use of the police, or even tomorrow on the Budget debate when we are prepared to carry on till 6 a.m. But I doubt the bona fides of the Government in moving the exemption of Standing Orders tonight.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: In moving it, Sir, the Government has not consulted any Member of the Opposition. I can say that the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson - and I am sure the Member for Cairnhill will also agree - have not been consulted on this. Sir, young men like us are prepared to sit till tomorrow 6 a.m., 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. We are used to it. But we must protest, as the Member for Anson has said, in the name of parliamentary democracy.

Mr David Marshall: Let's walk out!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Let's walk out. That is correct. All of us know that the staff of the Assembly are tired.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that should be advanced. I would not say that they are not tired. But I do not think that should be advanced as an argument in favour of the motion to adjourn the debate. After all, the staff and even the Speaker are here to abide by the decision of the Assembly.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have already made our stand clear in the past two weeks when we voted for the amendment. We, who wish to support the Minister for Labour's motion, can make further clarification of our points. We reject the White Paper. Every Party has made its stand clear, and if we are to decide whether we should talk more or whether we should defend the pillars of democracy, we say that defending the pillars of democracy is more vital and more important. All Members of the Opposition tonight should get united and leave this Chamber.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Hong Lim says that the topic has been sufficiently discussed and that everybody has made up his mind on the three motions, then there is another Standing Order (Closure of Debate) which could be applied and just a vote taken. That Standing Order reads:

'After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move, "That the question be now put", and, unless it appears to the Speaker or Chairman that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the Assembly, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, "That the question be now put", shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate, notwithstanding that the mover has had no opportunity to make his reply.'

But I must be satisfied that there has been no infringement of the rights of the minority. As I have said, if the hon. Member for Hong Lim is correct when he says that every Member has made up his mind, then there does not seem to be any reason why there should be any further debate. I just put that out as an avenue of escape from walking out.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have not made my point sufficiently clear. I was saying just now that we have made our stand quite clear on the motions on principle. But the subject is by no means exhausted. There are many Members who want to speak on the subject. But if we are to decide whether we should speak again on the subject and exhaust it or whether we should defend the pillars of parliamentary democracy, then we will have to defend the pillars of parliamentary democracy, and we will have to leave this Chamber. But I think we will give the Government a chance to reply whether they want to withdraw this motion to exempt Standing Orders or adjourn the debate.

Mr Speaker: In that case, if any Member attempts to move the closure, I will not agree.

9.17 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was rather distressed to hear the Member for Hong Lim who, when he was in the P.A.P. and a Mayor, set a historical precedent by tormenting his Opposition members in the City Council, saying that, "As representatives, we should be able to sit right through the night."

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I have clarified just now what are the bona fide extensions of a debate, like the instance when the Government was toppling, or the debate tomorrow. We are prepared to carry on in bona fide instances. When I was chairing the City Council meetings, there was a bona fide reason for extending the debate. But what the Minister has said just now is that that extension in the City Council was meant to torture members of the Opposition.

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, I quite understood what he said earlier. But just to emphasise what I wanted to point out, I say this. There was a time when the pillars of democracy were upheld in the City Council Chamber by having sessions which went on till the following morning. Whether it was bona fide or not is an issue which we have discussed, I think, for 11 or 12 days.

Mr David Marshall: Only the amendment.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I think you made a ruling that we should range over the whole series of topics.

Mr Speaker: Order. Let me make myself very clear. I think hon. Members will recollect that when the debate on the amendment was entered upon, and we had had about two speakers. I did make a suggestion that all Members be asked to make only one speech to cover that particular amendment and all matters affecting merger. An agreement was reached by Members of the Opposition that that should be done. But it was the Leader of the House who did not agree. The result was that Members confined themselves as much as they could to the amendment. That, of course, lets in the principle that once Members have spoken on the amendment, they could speak again on the main motion. And when they speak again on the main motion, it is then that they could range over the three motions I have mentioned, which now appear in items 1, 3 and 5. That is the position.

Members who have spoken on the amendment are now at liberty to speak again on items 1, 3 and 5 in so far as they touch on merger, and so long as they do not repeat their arguments and are relevant to the motion, excluding the topic we have already disposed of by reason of the amendment. That is quite clear.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Point of elucidation. Mr Speaker, I quite agree with what you have said just now. But you will also remember that you informed the House - I think it was when the Member for Cairnhill was speaking - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: He will have his say. When the Member for Cairnhill was speaking, you did agree that you would not call him to order if his speech was made outside the amendment. You said you would leave it to Members of the House, if necessary, to pull the Member speaking up. During the course of this 12-day debate, a considerable amount of energy has been spent and words have been uttered during which speakers on both sides have ranged very widely over all questions.

Mr Speaker: I quite agree that is so. And that is why the job of the Chair now is to see that Members do not repeat themselves. I already had one speech by the Member for Stamford where I had to pull her up and perhaps cut out half or possibly three-quarters of her speech. From now on, it will be the job of the Chair to see that Members do not repeat themselves. But the procedural position remains, and therefore Members are at liberty to speak.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true that the debate was on the amendment. But everybody who has read the newspapers knows that, in fact, both sides of the House have been stating their stands on the White Paper proposals, not only on the amendment but also on the main motion, and even the amendment to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. So it is quite clear that, in fact, all Members on both sides of the House have ranged over this topic.

Mr David Marshall: Point of clarification, if the Minister will give way.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged. I would like to assure the Minister, through you, Sir, that in so far as I am concerned, I have dealt with the White Paper very lightly and I hope to deal with it in detail. In fact, I have already got a 17-page speech ready - not that I want to consult anybody, but I think it is not fair to go on.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the point is that everybody knows that we are coming to these two motions, and that they will be debated today. We have debated this topic over the last 12 days. When the Member for Hong Lim talked about the pillar of democracy, for 12 days the pillar of democracy had been allowed to stand where they are and everybody who has anything to say can say so today. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you do ensure, as you have indicated, that there will be no repetition, then I am quite sure that what has to be said today on the topics under discussion for tonight can be said. The Member for Anson has already indicated that he has got a 17-page speech

• it is quite a change from a 52-page speech. So I say there is no reason for the contention that just because we have lifted Standing Orders for tonight, as we have done on many other occasions, the pillars of democracy are crumbling or that they will crumble. But if the truth must be told, Sir, it is quite clear why some Members of the Opposition, especially the Barisan Sosialis, are anxious for a postponement. Because we know, Sir, that there have been frantic telephone calls as the speeches tare not ready. More typewritten speeches -

Mr Low Por Tuck: Point of order, Sir. In fact, my speech is all ready.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I think arguments that are just being thrown backwards and .forwards will get us nowhere. I cannot see any further argument that could be advanced for or against the postponement of the debate or the adjournment of the debate. I ask Members to cut their speeches short. Perhaps leaders of each Party should decide that there should be one or two Members of their Party speaking. Then let us take a vote.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is the point, Sir. One Member has said that he has his speech ready. That is why, because people from outside have not got their line laid down, therefore, their men here want an adjournment. But I say, as Members of this Assembly, every Member after these 12 days should know exactly where he stands and what he wants to say. And he can say it tonight without any prompting from outside. Therefore, Sir, the pillars of democracy are safe and will continue to be safe. The fact that Standing Orders do allow such things is nothing irregular. It serves as an indication that democracy is not threatened. And therefore we see no reason for retreating from our stand on this point.

Mr Speaker: May I just clarify the matter of parliamentary practice?

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: And that is this: If moves are to be made procedurally in any Parliament, the usual thing is for consultations to be made through the usual channels. "Through the usual channels" means the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip getting together, so that agreement is reached on any procedural matter - the number of speeches, the length of speeches, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, here we have not got an Opposition Whip as such. I just want to make that quite clear.

Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

Mr Speaker: The Member has spoken.

9.27 p.m.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis have been accused of wanting to wreck the parliamentary system. But it would appear now that we, in fact, want to work the parliamentary system smoothly and effectively. And it is the Government that wants to overwork the parliamentary system and thereby make it unworkable. As you know, any engine that is overworked is bound to get rusty and ultimately will not be giving the result that it will give if it is normally worked smoothly and effectively.

Sir, I will not take very much time. I just want to make one or two points. Briefly they are: (1) that we in the Barisan Sosialis (I am sure the Government Members know this) are not incapable of sitting through a 24-hour session if we want to. Sir, I have no doubt every Member on the Government Front Bench is fully aware of this. Therefore, today when we suggest that we adjourn now, it does not mean that we are weaklings or that we are afraid to sit here and debate the issues until perhaps 6 a.m. or 2.30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

The second point, Sir, is this: we are also not incapable of making speeches without a written script. We are quite prepared, Sir, if the Government Members are, to take them on a debate without any script - the thirteen of us - anywhere they say, provided they do the same.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Bani: One other point which I want to make incidentally, Sir, is that we support the motion moved by the Member for Anson to adjourn now, because the issues we are debating are very serious. Sir, we are not talking about whether the Prime Minister should get a Tun or a Dato from the Federation Government. If merger is to mean whether the Prime Minister should be given a Tun or a Dato from the Federation Government, then I say we are all wasting our time talking for days and days. Sir, we are debating an issue which involves our livelihood. So far as Singapore is concerned, the livelihood of 1.8 million people. The 51 Members here are not supposed to be squatting around playing the fool and making a monkey of issues which the people are seriously concerned about. Today the Prime Minister spoke for four hours. Tomorrow, the daily papers are all covered with his speeches. In the words of the Minister for Culture, all that they seek to do is this. Because we have been debating for seven days on the amendment and we have been ranging over the other items in the Order Paper, we have nothing more to say. We will then debate for another hour or two hours, close the debate, and there will be no more discussion on merger. Briefly, it simply means, Sir, that they are scared to let us continue the debate on the merger motion.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Bani: I say this to them. If they are people who want to work the Parliamentary system, if they want to uphold the niceties or concepts of parliamentary democracy, then I say, have the guts to adjourn this debate now. Let us debate the issues before us coolly and calmly - not just for the information of the 51 Members or for your information, Sir, but for the information of the people of Singapore - in an atmosphere which would be conducive to the debate.

Finally, I want to say that this is not a question of having a debate tonight between the P.A.P. Members and the Barisan Sosialis Members. I assure you, Sir, that if it is a question of just the 26 Members of the P.A.P. and 13 Barisan Sosialis Members, and nobody else is expected to work, we say, fair enough, we are prepared to take them on for 24 hours or 48 hours or whatever they want. I have no doubt, Sir, that even the Prime Minister would be the first to go to sleep, because I and the Prime Minister had attended meetings and I have seen him leaving the meetings earlier than I. Therefore, I say this is not the question. We are people who, in fact, are not accustomed to go round the clock for a meeting.

The Prime Minister: Too much night life, that is the trouble!

Mr Bani: We have been accused of being night-birds. But it would appear now, Sir, that the Government Members, led by the Hon, the Prime Minister, are perhaps trying to follow us as night-birds.

I just want to conclude by saying this. If it is a question of just the Government Members debating the issue with the Barisan Sosialis Members, then it is all well and good. We have, not to mention you, Sir, other members of the staff in this Assembly, including the interpreters, -

Mr Speaker: I have indicated that the staff should not be made an excuse for supporting a motion of this nature. They are here to serve and they will serve if the Assembly says they ought to serve.

Mr Bani: I do not wish to involve you in the debate. But the point that I want to establish is that there are definitely people who are going to be overworked.

The Prime Minister: You are one of them!

Mr Bani: No. You know me. I can -

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: I know you too well. That is the trouble!

Mr Bani: The point that I wanted to establish was this. As far as we are concerned, we are quite prepared to sit round the clock. But as I have said, there are going to be people who are going to be overworked. The issues are such that they need proper consideration, and in an atmosphere which is conducive to discussing such matters. We say that in the interest of parliamentary democracy, let us adjourn and discuss coolly and calmly.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: My intention in speaking early in this is that I fear there would be a lengthy debate on the motion for the adjournment, while the typewriters are merrily going on in the Committee Room.

An hon. Member: No.

The Prime Minister: Oh, we can hear it, Sir, from the C.P.A. Room. One of the disadvantages of the C.P.A. Room is that the sounds of the typewriters are very audible. I must warn you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is going to be a lengthy and dreary process. [Interruption] Sir, that is the point. That is why if only they know what they are typing out has to be uttered in this Chamber! If only they would realise the utter futility of all these dreary words which are sheer repetition, then you, Mr Speaker, Sir, would be in better humour and the rest of the House would be in better health. But the Member for Thomson - I am sorry to have to admit this, Sir; I was there quaffing a glass of beer with his Secretary-General (a very bourgeois habit) was drinking a glass of brandy and ginger ale. That is proof that he is a bourgeois man.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Hon. The Prime Minister wishes to bring up these little incidents, that, I think, is personal conduct. Therefore, he should file a substantive motion to discuss beer drinking and brandy drinking. I might tell the Prime Minister also that I am thirsty. I have not had my beer!

The Prime Minister: Sir, you have my deepest sympathy, and I hope -

An hon. Member: Let us go home!

The Prime Minister: There is nothing to prevent any Member from going home. There is nothing to prevent any Member from conscientiously doing so in the name of world revolution. What I would like to hear from Members opposite, Sir, is a bit of real fierce talk in the name of world revolution. They will sit round the clock, but in the name of parliamentary democracy, Sir. That bourgeois animal is meant for only bourgeois politicians.

An hon. Member: Dictatorship!

The Prime Minister: Dictatorship Sir? We have squatted through 12 days of this. We will squat through 12 hours of this till tomorrow morning, till tomorrow midnight, if necessary.

An hon. Member: Not in this Chamber?

The Prime Minister: In this Chamber. But surely, Sir, if we do not want to bring this Chamber into disrepute. while we are trying to squat through 34 hours of this, there are certain necessary processes of nature. The trouble with Members on the other side is that they lose their sense of balance, and they lose it because all of a sudden a prop is gone, Sir. The prop is gone in the midst of the performance. The white rabbit is not put in the top hat. The prop is not ready -

Mr Bani rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Bani: Yes, Sir. I think this is irrelevant.

Mr Speaker: I was about to rise. It is irrelevant. Let us go on with this debate. Let us take a vote anyway.

The Prime Minister: Indeed, Mr Speaker, let us vote. They have been given three full weeks to consider. Do they mean to tell me or you or the people of Singapore that they are going to change their minds when they had already taken a stand before the White Paper was published? They oppose anything published by me and the Tunku. Tomorrow if we were to say were agree to automatic something or the other, they would oppose it. As the Tunku says, he can do no right, Sir, and so Members of the Opposition from Singapore and some from the Federation are opposing it. He is prepared for it. They are prepared for it. They are going to oppose it in any event. I may say we were brought up in a much tougher and rougher school. I do not want to complain of these things, but I do riot think the Member for Thomson did me justice when he said that I always leave the meetings early. Not always, but sometimes.

An hon. Member: You come late also!

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: I come late, Sir, because often I come from another meeting.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: And you take your bath in between!

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Yes. It is very necessary. It helps to freshen the mind. It exhilarates the mental processes.

Mr Speaker: Order. This, of course, is prolonging matters. Let us wind up this debate and come to some decision anyway.

The Prime Minister: I will wind up the debate on the basis of the arguments I have heard from the Member for Queenstown. Sir, from one ex-united front performer to another present united front performer, I say he is not up to the standard. He has to find reasons. He says there are no bus services and no cars. That is a very complicated thing. Surely, Sir, -

An hon. Member: We do not have Daimlers.

The Prime Minister: Diamlers? We do not need them. Renaults are good enough. They can carry five or six or seven persons. I have known the Member for Nee Soon, in the days of the P.A.P. revolution, sending them all home in his car. Thirteen of them will require - how many cars? The Member for Nee Soon, the Member for Queenstown, the Member Havelock, the Member for Upper Serangoon -

Mr Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the question that the debate be now adjourned. I must ask Members on the Opposition benches not to interject. If they interject, of course, they get a response. And the response tends to be a bit long. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: My point is most relevant. An argument has been seriously advanced that they have to go home earlier because they have no cars. They have no transport. The buses have stopped. Two days ago they were prepared to go on till 5.00 o'clock in the morning in defence of the stand of the students to picket and bully.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is right.

The Prime Minister: How come tonight they are not? [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: That is the trouble. They talk all nonsense about fat salaries. The Member for Queenstown has to make his living. I know that, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I have ruled that out of order, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Thank you very much, Sir. He says there is no time to think on national matters. No time to think? That is the trouble with the Member of Queenstown. For the 12 sitting days and three weeks since we published the White Paper, and since they shook Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj by the hand at Paya Lebar Airport to bid him bon voyage, the Tunku has gone to discuss very big matters with very big people. Sir - four British Cabinet Ministers - and to arrive at a massive decision affecting the future of so many people and tens of thousands of square miles. We have been hearing the same thing played on this gramophone record again and again. Needles have been slipped back again. It is like the zither in the "The Third Man." I say we are quite prepared to sit - it is now a quarter to ten - till quarter to ten tomorrow morning. Or be it a quarter to 2.00 tomorrow. We were brought up in a hard school.

An hon. Member: We are human!

The Prime Minister: Sorry, Sir. When I say we, I meant P.A.P. and ex-P.A.P. And the Member for Hong Lim is quite accustomed to this. He is used to this in the old City Council days. He is tough. He was brought up tough. The P.A.P. brought him up tough. The Barisan Sosialis are tough too. We know they can stand it. But I think they should not under-rate our capacity for sheer stamina and endurance. We will sit it though to the end. The Member for Thomson said that I leave early. Well, I promise him I will not leave early. I will squat here till the cows come home, till the crows come at dawn. But I will say this. I am giving them a few more minutes to get the first speech ready, while the sound of the typewriter is going on. But for God's sake, let us not be hypocritical - in the name of parliamentary democracy, according to the rules, the Standing Orders, the Constitution, the Speaker. We have been patient and forbearing to the end, and we are accused of selling out parliamentary democracy.

Mr David Marshall: Non-consultation.

The Prime Minister: Non-consultation? As if consultation between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Member for Anson -

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Consultation is not a joke.

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Consultation? I know a doctor's consultation means money, Sir. That is the trouble. Whenever he thinks of consultation, it is the cash pot, Sir. The sound of cash.

Mr Speaker: Order. This debate is being prolonged unnecessarily. I would like somebody to move the closure because it seems to me that Members have made up their minds and no further argument can be advanced. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: That is the point. I will end it on this note. Members have made up their minds, which we do hold. In the case of the Opposition, they made up their minds before 16th November. They are going to oppose it in any event. But I will say this, in fairness to the Member for Anson. He made up his mind to oppose. He spoke to me in the C.P.A. Room just now. I genuinely and sincerely believe that he is unmaking his mind after what he has heard in the course of the debate from the Member for Farrer Park and from myself on the meaning of "nationality" and so on. He is the only genuine chap there who is thinking out his mind. The others have decided to vote. The Member for Hong Lim has said so. He will vote for the amendment. He will vote for the original motion. He cannot be wrong, Sir. One of it has to be right, and he has voted for one.

Mr Speaker: Let us not go into those details. Will the Prime Minister complete his speech?

An hon. Member: He has nothing to say.

The Prime Minister: Parliamentary democracy does not mean that we allow the Opposition to invoke these magic words in order just to clog up the processes of legislation. We have a Budget to go through. We want them to debate the Budget. We have given them the full number of days to consider the Budget. We have offered a very important proposal. A motion was moved by the Minister for Finance the day before yesterday to allow a supplementary vote on account -

Mr Bani rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Bani: Yes. I wonder if this is relevant, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I think it is relevant. The argument is that if this motion goes on, then there will not be time to complete the Budget and the other items on the Order Paper before Christmas. And I like my Christmas.

The Prime Minister: As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, in other legislative chambers, there are certain stricter rules. You yourself have mentioned the rules, the powers, the devices which this House can exercise to cut things down to the bone and cut away all the forth. But we have been lenient. We want to go on till half-past two tomorrow. It does not matter. We will sit here with patience, with tolerance and with forbearance. And hear this out too. One thing I do not doubt of Members of the Barisan Sosialis is that they, having gone through the P.A.P. mill, can go through this and survive. The Members from the United People's Party too. I have not the slightest doubt that parliamentary democracy will not come to grief just because you have to sit up all night. Say what they have to say, with the help of whatever ghost writers they can rustle up - and they have rustled up quite a few. We shall listen to it patiently and carefully and rebut every material point made. I do not promise that we will rebut every frivolous and irrelevant point. But they will find, like the Member for Queenstown, that there is somebody always in this Chamber who has taken down the material point in order that it shall not be lost by default. Every material point made in the debate that must be answered will be answered. I promise them that. I say, let us go on with the debate. They are not afraid of sitting up late. Neither are we. They want to do their duty by the people. They have made up their minds. They said they were never consulted. The Member for Upper Serangoon has the audacity to suggest that he is going to consult. Just as we want to start debating, to wind up the debate, he now says that he wants to consult the people of Upper Serangoon. What has he been doing in the last three weeks with his meet-the-people sessions?

An hon. Member: Yes.

The Prime Minister: Does he seriously suggest that he is going to change his mind? Only the Member for Anson seriously suggests that, and I believe him. I say to him, I am prepared to sit down with him till the early hours of the morning - night-bird he may not be, though - to explain every conceivable item on this. Let me say this. The debate is not over after the vote in this Chamber. This is what the former Member for Bukit Timah, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, with whom I was quaffing beer, said, Sir. Just before I came in here, he was having a whispering session with the Member for Thomson before he made his speech. I've got the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Mountbatten as witnesses to all these proceedings. Real, earnest consultation, Sir. And the Member for Thomson told me, just to alarm me -

Mr Bani: On a point of order, Sir. Is this relevant?

Mr Speaker: I do not know what is coming out. The Prime Minister has got into the mood of wandering and wandering and suddenly coming to the point. Perhaps those are very good tactics. I do not know.

The Prime Minister: It is this, Sir. To alarm me and alarm the poor Lady from Mountbatten, he said loudly, "Telegram from Chin Peng." And the poor Member from -

Mr Speaker: Order. That, of course, is not relevant. We are not worried about Chin Peng.

The Prime Minister: That is the point. Sir. I say that the conscious utterance betrays the subconscious. I think the Member for Nee Soon can explain why people grow beards for no rhyme or reason.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Prime Minister to wind up because he is now persisting in irrelevancies. Standing Order 54 might apply. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I say, in the name of democracy, it is important that there should be forbearance, tolerance and good humour in the midst of adversity. That is important. Forbearance and good humour -

Mr Speaker: Order. I quite agree about forbearance, good humour - but at the right time. Let us now wind up this debate.

The Prime Minister: I can only say that the answer to all this is the good proletarian habit of a glass of beer, which I have just had with the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, and, therefore, the tolerance and good humour. I say to them, if they are as democratic as we are, there are the rules. Let us play according to the rules. Sit through midnight to sunrise, and down to sunset. We will listen to it all - trivial, relevant, or irrelevant.

Mr Bani: On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Surely.

Mr Bani: I want to say that whatever we say from this side of the House is not just for Members on the opposite side to hear.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has made that point. I must ask the Prime Minister now to wind up.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to say anymore. other than this. In the name of parliamentary democracy, let us abide by the rules. These Standing Orders are Queensberry rules. There is the referee, albeit without a gun, Sir. But we have the Serjeant at Arms with a ceremonial sword. I say, play according to the rules because that is in their best interest. If they should go outside the rules, as I say, it is not me that they have to contend with or collide with. I am only the penultimate authority. Penultimate means next to the ultimate. They know the ultimate. So let us play according to the rules. We have abided by the rules. We gave them all the notices, all the opportunities. We wanted to sit through Saturday and Sunday. They did not want to. The- Member for Anson wanted it.

Mr David Marshall: Saturday only.

The Prime Minister: Yes, he wanted Saturday only. Two Saturdays we have lost. The Member for Queenstown, as usual, in an abrupt manner, did not want to speak to me, Sir, in this Chamber after you had left. He only speaks to me when you, are here, Sir. And he said no -

Mr Speaker: Order. I suppose that is because he knows he gets the protection of the Chair. But may I ask the Prime Minister again to wind up what he has to say?

The Prime Minister: And last, the point I wish to make, Sir, is that we have given them approximately one hour and fifteen minutes to type at least two speeches. So let us hear it now.

Mr Speaker: I am not calling anybody else except a Member of the Alliance.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, we have spent slightly more than an hour debating the motion for the adjournment. We, from the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance, are prepared to sit right through if it is the desire of this House. But because the trend of the debate is such that it appears that it is nothing but party warfare we will not take part in the voting. But if it is the wish of the House that we should sit, we will be only too pleased to sit.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated that I will accept a motion for closure of the debate, which does not give the mover of the motion any opportunity to make a reply. If no other Member wishes to speak, I shall then invite the closure of the debate.

Mr John Mammen: Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 51, I beg to move,

That the question be now put.

Mr Speaker: I am quite satisfied in my mind that the motion has been sufficiently debated and that there is no infringement of the rights of any minority. Members of Parties have expressed the views of their Parties to other Members, and I think that possibly we should come to a vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved.

That the question be now put.

Question put, "That the debate now adjourned."

10.00 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 26; Abstentions, 7; Absent, 1. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Ahmad bin Chan Sun Wing. Ibrahim. Fung Yin Ching, Buang Bin Miss. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Bryne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Lingam, S. V. Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Eng Guan. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Abstentions. Mohd. Ariff bin Abdul Hamid bin Suradi. Haji Jumat. M. Ismail Rahim. Ahmad Jabri bin Ong Pang Boon. Mohammad Akib. Rajaratnam, S. Lim Yew Hock. Ramaswamy, S. Mohd. Ali bin Sahorah binte Alwi. Ahmat, Madam. Rajah, A. P. Tan Kia Gan. Seow Peck Leng, Toh Chin Chye. Mrs. Wee Toon Boon. Thio Chan Bee. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Absent Yong Nyuk Lin. Koh, C. H.

Motion accordingly negatived.

At this stage, Members of the Barisan Sosialis, the United People's Party and the Member of the Workers Party left the Chamber.

Some hon. Members: Good-night

Miss Fung Yin Ching: Good-night!

Mr Speaker: Order. The debate continues.

10.07 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, there is very little to add after the demonstration that has just taken place. May I say that those who stay behind, probably without involving the name of parliamentary democracy, understand that it means, be amongst other things, a certain degree-of tolerance, forbearance and playing according to the rules. The dilemma the Barisan Sosialis Members are in is this: playing according to the rules, they know they are going to lose, Mr Speaker, Sir. Deep down the bottom of their hearts, they know it. By leaving this Chamber in mock protest, they have admitted that they cannot win by constitutional processes. They wanted us to make the first mistake - to do something unconstitutional; use force; beat up students or, as Mr S. Woodhull suggested in the presence of the Minister for Culture and the Member for Cairnhill a few days ago in the C.P.A. Room, "Swipe us!" The Minister for Culture and the Minister for Finance said, "No." Sorry, Sir, I understand the Member for Mountbatten does not understand the meaning of "Swipe us!" What in a rather exhilarating mood, which I was told was induced by several glasses of beer without a proper meal -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think probably the Prime Minister is getting away from the motion. Perhaps he will excuse the Speaker because he has not had a glass of beer.

10.09 p.m.

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

The Prime Minister: The point that he made by implication is that playing according to the rules he is going to lose. The whole of the Barisan side, the whole of the C.P. outfit, the trade union movements under their control, schoolboys' associations, University or Socialist Club, Political Science Club, old boys' associations - they cannot win according to the rules, because, in the nature of things, people en masse, given the opportunity to express their will by secret ballot, will not be so easily bamboozled and intimidated. One of the first things they should remember - when I hope my voice will be heard outside this Chamber - is that playing according to the rules means playing according to the rules right to the bitter end - constitutional, according to Standing Orders, according to established democratic procedure and practice. But I give this one bouquet, that they were able, for a diversity of reasons, to get the Member for Anson on their side and thereby slightly confuse the situation. If they had gone out just by themselves, people would have said, "Ah, well." I am not saying this of hon. Members in this House. I am saying what the coffee-shop people, to whom the Member for Farrer Park has from time to time referred, would say - inexperienced, impetuous and often wrong - and "walking out" to them may be a little gesture of defiance and protest. What is the meaning of that in a situation such as this? For nearly three weeks we have sat through every tirade, every tedious repetition. We made no protest. The Speaker did, and when he did, the Acting Leader of the House, the Minister for Culture, went into the Speaker's Chambers and said, "Let the debate continue." That was Thursday last week. "Let the debate continue. Let everybody have his say." What did the Member for Anson say? He wanted the whole of what transpired in the Speaker's Chambers to be secret and confidential. Why? Because it is not in his interests. Because in Chambers, he agreed with the Speaker (am I right?) that the proceedings should be cut short, that they were getting tedious, too long; Judges in the Federation were getting restive; dates for trials were being postponed. What is the trouble about? They have been given every opportunity to say what they want to say, and they will have every opportunity till dawn or noon tomorrow to say whatever more they wish to say. Do they seriously believe that anybody in Singapore would listen to their argument that, given more time to collect the views of the people, according to the Member for Upper Serangoon, they might change their minds. They had committed themselves beforehand.

The simple proposition before us is: Is what we are doing, first, unconstitutional? The answer is no. It is in accordance with the Constitution, in accordance with the Standing Orders, in accordance with parliamentary practice and tradition. We have tomorrow to begin the debate on the Budget. Without the Budget we cannot spend next year's expenses; annually recurrent development expenditure cannot be spent. That is part of the democratic practice and constitutional requirement. We have given them the full lease, the full run. We are prepared to give them from 10 p.m. tonight till 2.30 tomorrow to talk their heads off. We are prepared to listen to them. We will make notes and answer them. If they had been men of substance, if they had really not only wanted to play for time but had the ability to play for time according to the rules, I would have suggested to them that the way to do it would have been to get their performer - the Member for Queenstown - here to talk for 7� hours on his own, without a script, to be relevant, consistent, to the point, and play for time, right till 2.30 p.m., when we must discuss the Budget. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that. We offered them from 7.30 p.m. tonight to 2.30 p.m. tomorrow - 19 hours - and they could not fill it up. That is all. They wanted more time for more clever pieces to be written by people in the Committee Room, in the Headquarters of the Barisan Sosialis, in little cubicles elsewhere in town. We wanted their performers here to fill up those 19 hours. We wanted to listen to them, what they are capable of on their own. And what are they capable of on their own? Just a walk-out. Fair enough. They abjured their rights as legislators to play according to the democratic rules of this Assembly to argue it out. They lost the argument. Like piqued children, they picked themselves up. In the case of the Member for Anson - he must always be special - he picked up a very big book and walked out.

An hon. Member: The Encyclopedia Britannica!

The Prime Minister: The Encyclopedia Britannica. I hope it is the latest edition, otherwise he might be reading stale stuff.

But whatever it is, let us congratulate ourselves that, in this first contest of patience and endurance, they have lost out. Talk till the cows come home. Be reasonable till the cows come home, till the cocks crow in the morning. Unfortunately for the Communists - as I was explaining over a glass of beer to the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis - they have picked out the weakest elements in the P.A.P. and thereby saved ourselves a lot of trouble. Now it is their problem to defend these weak elements. I said to him, "God bless you," in Chinese and he looked at me fiercely in the eye and said. "We are not superstitious." Well, I wish him well. But I say this to him. We know he has 13 chaps to talk through. Typewriters were going furiously. I got the dear Lady from Mountbatten to bear witness. She and I heard it. The Member for Tanglin also heard it. I drew his attention to it. The typewriters were going furiously, Sir. Do they believe that by walking out, parliamentary democracy is destroyed? The Member for Stamford has applied for a mass meeting at Colombo Court. I think it is within a two-mile radius of this Assembly. Therefore, if she holds it, it might be deemed to be an intimidation of this Chamber. But as far as we the Government are concerned, we agree. Sunday mass meeting, by all means. Typewriters go. "Sell-out" to Nanyang Siang Pau and Sin Chew Jit Poh - I say to them, publish by all means. But I say, "Look, at your own peril." These are things which are noted down in Kuala Lumpur because publishing licences are concurrent things. Sir, the Singapore Government is accustomed to sophisticated city life and we allow these things. But the good country folk in the Federation do not like this kind of talk and funny articles. And I say these papers carry their own risks.

The long and short of it is this. By being patient and forbearing and by talking peace, we have shown that they have given up. They are unequal to a Panmunjon. That is what it amounts to. We have to be grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the 13 gentlemen who have left us and gone over to the other side, the three who left us earlier, and the Member for Anson, were not made of sterner stuff. If they were made of the quality of the men who led the North Korean delegation to Panmunjon, I say we would be here till the cows come home on New Year's Night, 1962. They are unequal to their jobs. Let North Korea know it. I admired them for the way they took on the Americans and the United Nations. They talked them round the clock, backwards and forwards, in and out, and they came back fresh, calm, collected and polite. I congratulated the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis on the good humour with which he drank beer, laughed and bantered as he talked of old times. We talked a lot about old times until the Member for Thomson rushed in and said, "Telegram from Chin Peng." It proved one thing. They are not capable of playing according to the rules. I say to them. "Well, you play outside the rules at your own peril." We are only interested in playing according to the rules, laws and regulations made by this Chamber to see that the Queensberry Rules are observed. If they play outside them, they do so at their own risk.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not believe anybody wants to drag out a Panmunjon. Since we do not have the Communists' representatives here any more, there is no necessity to drag Out the proceedings. There will no doubt be witty, brief, short and to the point speeches. Then in the name of parliamentary democracy, according to the Constitution and the Standing Orders and the best of established traditions and practice, we will take the vote and show the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists how foolish and inadequate they are to the new task they have to face. These are not the wicked and oppressive colonialists whom they have to meet. They have not got to meet a William Goode in the Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen): Order. I think the Prime Minister is completely irrelevant. Perhaps he can come to the subject motion of the debate.

The Prime Minister: I think the subject motion of the debate has been thoroughly exhausted to the point of no return.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Then I think we can close the debate and put the question to the vote.

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I submit to your ruling, but I would suggest perhaps one or two words from those who would like to say something on the other side before the Minister for Labour winds up and the vote is taken-this time with no voice dissenting. Just imagine it, Sir. They lost the opportunity of saying that 17 raucous voices in the name of parliamentary democracy voted against. Now we carry this vote with no voice dissenting. We who believe in democracy in a non-Communist Malaya will see this thing through.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

10.23 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed regrettable that the debate on such a vital question as merger with the Federation of Malaya has turned out to be an occasion for Party comrades and ex-Party comrades to have it out.

We have said earlier, Sir, that if it is the desire of the House that the debate shall continue, we are prepared to remain; and to that extent we remain. We consider that the motion is very, very important as it affects the welfare and livelihood of each and every one of us in Singapore.

The debate on the amendment proposed by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis unfortunately took 12 days. It need not have taken such a long time had the Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. not found it necessary to indulge in party politics on a matter that is of vital importance to the country. I must repeat here what I said the other day - and it has been mentioned again - that what has been agreed between the two Governments is not merger. In fact, if I point out from the wording of the motions before the House, hon. Members will find that even in the mind of the mover of the third motion - that is to say, in the mind of the Prime Minister - the agreements reached and set Out in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961 are not agreements for merger. In the first motion in the name of the Minister for Labour, the word "merger" is mentioned. If I may be permitted to read from the fourth last line of the motion:

'... 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.'.

Whereas in the wording of the third motion in the name of the Prime Minister, the words used are:

'...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 word "merger" is left out in the third motion. Therefore, it is clear that the agreements reached and set out in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961 are not for a merger. They are indeed a step towards merger, and because it is a step towards merger we welcome it. But my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, wants to make this very clear - that is why he will be moving an amendment to the third motion - that the agreements reached and set out in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961 are just "the immediate practical step towards a complete merger". That is the wording and I am not speaking on the amendment just yet, Sir. That is clear, Sir,I hope the Government will accept the amendment of the Member for Farrer Park when it is moved at the proper time.

The Minister for Labour (Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim) rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply, Mr Minister?

10.27 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I moved the motion with the intention of seeking the agreement of everyone in Singapore to the principle of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The details, terms and conditions of such a merger can be the subject of debate and even of considerable disagreement. But on principle nobody has publicly dared to say that he opposes merger. Whoever says that understands that he will run counter to every nationalist sentiment that has been the inspiration of the struggle against colonialism for independence of the people of Malaya.

By the amendment of the Member for Queenstown, he sought to confuse the issues. Now we are back to the original motion. Let him and his Communist backroom boys carefully calculate before they take the vote on the division. Unfortunately, they have left the Chamber. This motion seeks agreement in broad principle to merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. If they want to ask for terms and conditions about automatic conversion from Singapore citizenship and so on, let them argue on the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister asking the House to accept the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. But on this, let there be no equivocation. Either they are for or against merger in principle.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown has always been the rugger forward, always full of the "charge forward" spirit. But I am afraid he is not here in this Chamber to listen to this. In his innocence, he has been carried away by the enthusiastic words and phrases of the Communists of the prospect of easy victory in collaboration with them. When he started on this hazardous gamble, he was unaware of the great peril that lies in his path. He and his colleagues have struck out for themselves. He has formed a Party the constitution of which is such as to make him completely a prisoner of the Communists. They control their Communist cadres in the branches who, by their activist methods, control the members of the branches. From the branches they control him in the Central Executive Committee by having a majority of the pro-Communists in the Executive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown lacks the political experience which the Member for Hong Lim has. Whatever his shortcomings, the Member for Hong Lim is not a dope to be taken for a ride by the Communists. When he formed his Party - the United People's Party - he ensured that the Communists would not capture him and his Party. He has used his invaluable experience in the P.A.P. to improve on the safeguards in his Party Constitution by copying and improving on the cadre control system of the Party.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Hon. the Minister must realise that he is replying to the debate, and all this is completely irrelevant to the motion.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, I think there is relevance because, in the course of my speech, I think it is important that I should make certain references. I am not going into details, but just mention in passing.

Mr Speaker: I do not think the fact that the Member for Hong Lim copied the P.A.P. Constitution has anything to do with this merger.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: I think there is a motive behind the reason why they oppose such a merger in principle, and I am just trying to relate the background of it. The real intention behind the Member for Hong Lim and the Barisan, and the way they have got themselves involved in the arguments in this debate, have some relevance to the points I am trying to make in my reply.

Mr Speaker: That may be so. But how does the Constitution of the U.P.P. and the Constitution of the P.A.P. being similar have anything to do with merger? Unless the two Parties are going to merge. I do not know.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged for your ruling.

Coming back to the Member for Queenstown, I must say that he has done himself in by the way he argued in the debate on this motion. In the case of the Member for Hong Lim, Sir, he has never denied that there are Communists in Singapore and that some tried to penetrate into his Party. Being an experienced united front worker in the P.A.P., he remained silent all through this debate. When my colleagues and I explained how the Communists are manipulating the Barisan Sosialis and Partai Ra'ayat, and planting cadres in the Workers' Party and trying to penetrate into the U.P.P., the Barisan Sosialis said there are no Communists, the Partai Ra'ayat denied it all, and the Chairman of the Workers' Party, the Member for Anson, wanted to know who they are. But the Chairman of the United People's Party, the Member for Hong Lim, wisely remained silent. He was a member of the Internal Security Council. He knows what this is all about. He was a member of the Cabinet then. When the paper was presented by the Deputy Prime Minister - it was tabled in this House sometime this year - the Member for Hong Lim was fully aware of what was going on in Singapore. He is not going to deny that there are no Communists. In fact, only last week, Mr Speaker, be told me and some of my colleagues in the Government to expose all the Communists and their manoeuvres in the Barisan Sosialis. He drew a line between the Communists and himself. Very wisely, unlike the Member for Anson, he has steered clear of the Communist united front of .the Barisan Sosialis. He knows well that the red star of the Barisan Sosialis is a dire peril. However persuasive Mr Lim Ching Siong and his other friends may be, I am prepared to bet that the Member for Hong Lin is too experienced to get his people involved when asked to go for a ride in a car which he knows is heading for the cliff.

Meanwhile, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Nee Soon has already insured himself against the day when the Tunku will have to do something about the Communists in Singapore. He has referred to the Tunku in glowing terms as a statesman, doubtless in the fervent hope that, by so doing, he is paying a premium for getting his name scratched out from the little black book which they keep in Kuala Lumpur. Of all the colourful admissions of the Barisan Sosialis, I think the most vivid was that of my old colleague, Mr S. Woodhull, when in a moment of frankness in a conversation in the C.P.A. Room last week with the Minister for Culture, who asked him why he looked so gloomy, he asked, "What is there to be cheerful about?" He likened their position to that of the Zenkuren Buddhist who was holding on to the edge of a cliff by the skin of his teeth, and who was asked what he had to say for himself. If he chose to say something and opened his mouth, utter disaster would befall him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has on several occasions in the past referred to the forces at work in the open political arena in Malaya - the nationalist Right, the opportunist Right, the democratic Left and the Communist Left. Each one force has its own interests to advance. Each one force has its own ideas of how to improve the life of the people of Malaya. But although not in the open arena, the British and the Communist underground play a considerable role in influencing events.

One of the curious things which have taken place in the last few months is the apparent parley between the Communist Left and the British, leading to cocktail parties and tea parties for the so-called great leaders - Lim Ching Siong, Fong Swee Suan, James Puthucheary, S. Woodhull - by the Most Honourable the Earl of Selkirk, U.K. Commissioner for Singapore. One of the points of understanding they have reached, Sir, is that the British bases, which are vital for British commitments to S.E.A.T.O., should be left alone. I do not know how the British were able to seduce the Communists into agreeing to this line, but agreed to this they certainly have. Only recently, Mr Speaker, (I hope I am not repeating, but this is factual information), Mr Woodhull, at a general meeting of the Naval Base Labour Union, steadfastly defended the retention of these bases - this was reported in the daily Press - as necessary in the interests of the workers themselves. Quite rightly he pointed out that the military bases contributed 20 per cent of the earnings to the economy of Singapore. Can it be that the British were aware that the Federation and Singapore Governments were getting together on merger and that the time would come soon when they (the British), faced with the possibility of merger and the abandonment of these bases, were prepared to play with the Communisis and get them to believe that perhaps they could take power provided the eases were left untouched?

So in London Mr Macmillan could have said to the Tunku, as the Prime Minister has just said, that since the Communists in Singapore have agreed that the bases should be left intact, why should the nationalist Right, like the Tunku, or the nationalist Left, like the PAP. Government, be more anticolonialistic than the Communists? Perhaps this whole sorry tale of the Garden of Eden Hall, besides drawing the Cornniunists into the open where they could be devoured by lions and tigers, is also a gambit to get a counter to play against the Federation Government and the Singapore Government on the question of the bases in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, right up to now, although the Tunku has on several occasions pressed the point of not having S.E.A.T.O. bases in the territory of the new independent Federation of Malaysia, the Communists have strangely been silent and tacitly acquiesced in the continuance of the S.E.A.T.O. bases. So by a strange twist of British diplomacy and the right-about turn of the young and inexperienced open-front Communist Left, the Communists are now in a false position which is rapidly becoming untenable.

Question put, "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 Prime Minister: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 33; No, Nil; Absent, 18.

Motion accordingly agreed to. Ayes. No. Abdul Hamid bin Nil Haji Jumat. Ahmad bin Absent. Ibrahim. Ahmad Jabri bin Bani, S. T. Mohammad Akib. Chan Sun Wing. Buang bin Fung Yin Ching, Omar Junid. Miss. Byrne, K. M. Koh, C. H. Chan Chee Seng. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Choy Siong, Leong Keng Seng. Madam. Lin You Eng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lingam, S. V. Goh Chew Chua. Low Por Tuck. Goh Keng Swee. Marshall, David. Hoe Puay Choo, Ng Teng Kian. Madam. Ong Chang Sam. Kandasamy, G. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Teck Him. Tee Kim Leng. Lim Cheng Lock. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Yew Hock. Wong Soon Fong. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmad, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Motion acordingly agreed to.