MERGER AND CONSTITUTIONAL FUTURE (SINGAPORE)

2.41 p.m.

Order read for resumption of motion,

`That this Assembly views with grave concern and anxiety the exclusion of the Opposition Parties in the current "merger" negotiations, and demands that the Government convene forthwith an All-Party Conference to discuss and to agree on all basic questions on the constitutional future of Singapore; and failing agreement, demands that the Government seek without delay a new mandate from the people.' -(Dr Lee Siew Choh).

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose yesterday, I was briefly touching on the shameful record of the P.A.P. in the merger negotiations. I showed the House that the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Acting Prime Minister at that time, to the Opposition leaders on the 1st September, 1961, was a cheap political propaganda stunt calculated to deceive the people that all Parties had been consulted in their sell-out merger. I was saying. Sir, that even the reactionary Lim Yew Hock Government had the decency to consult all the Parties and had agreement with them in principle before proceeding to negotiate with the British Government in 1958.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): So you prefer the Lim Yew Heck Government.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But now, the Lee Kuan Yew Government must make it a one-Party affair.

An hon. Member: Petir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, in view of all this, we then urged the Acting Prime Minister at that time to place the matter before the people. The Workers' Party and the United People's Party both supported our stand. The Workers' Party implored the Government to call the House into session forthwith. The United People's Party asked for the convening of an All-Party conference without delay. I listed six instances yesterday with dates, Sir. Now I come to the seventh.

(7) The next chapter (this is the seventh) of this shameful record of dictatorial rule opened on the 6th of September, 1961, when the Acting Prime Minister said, "If an All-Party conference is to be of value to assist and guide the Government in its deliberations on the constitutional arrangement for merger, there must be unanimity on the main points."

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Correct.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, simple logic tells us that you cannot know if there is agreement or no agreement unless and until there is a coming together for at: exchange of views. In this case there was never consultation of the views of the Opposition Parties at any stage of the negotiations to date. So it is nonsense for the Deputy Prime Minister to presume there was no unanimity on the main points. Whether we agree or not is another matter. What concerns us at the moment is that there is arbitrary and dictatorial action on the part of the P.A.P. Government.

(8) On the 16th of September, 1961, the second joint statement of the two Prime Ministers was issued and on the following day, a further confusing Press interview was given by the Prime Minister of Singapore. But this is the point: of official news from the Government to the Opposition Parties, there was nothing. Even the Member for Farrer Park complained in the radio forum of 21st September, 1961, when the question of an All-Party Conference was discussed.

The Prime Minister: One forum you will not forget for a long, long time.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister for Finance was told in no uncertain terms that the P.A.P. should not treat everybody as fools.

(9) On 12th October, 1961, the Member for Tanglin after much serious thinking also came out with a call for an All-Party Conference of political Parties in the Assembly.

(10) Following this, on 6th October, 1961, three Opposition leaders the Member for Hong Lim on behalf of the United People's Party, the Member for Anson on behalf of the Workers' Party -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: A one-man Party.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and myself on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis jointly sent a letter to the Leader of the House urging the Government to convene a meeting of the Assembly forthwith to consider and debate the basic principles and to appoint an All-Party Conference.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: For what reason?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But what did the D.P.M. say?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: But what did the who say?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Leader of the House knows the rules of debate. If he wishes for clarification, he should please stand up and he will get clarification. I cannot allow this running commentary from the ministerial Benches.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, he said that there was no necessity and that it was all plain nonsense.

Sir, from all this, it is apparent that the Opposition Parties have been deliberately denied the right to participate in charting the course of our own constitutional future. We do not seek the right solely to decide Singapore's constitutional future. All we ask is the right of participation. Notwithstanding this, the P.A.P. has seen fit solely to decide on the constitutional future of Singapore. It is now quite clear to the people of Singapore that the P.A.P. has committed the whole future of Singapore over the question of its phoney merger because the P.A.P. is an active sponsor of the Malaysia scheme. Malaysia is the only political objective of the Tunku. He has made it quite clear that there is going to be no acceptance of Singapore if there is no Malaysia - a very consistent stand of the Tunku. Singapore therefore is only wanted for the sole purpose of Malaysia.

Sir, as political events unfold themselves, the people of Singapore are becoming increasingly confused and confounded.

The Prime Minister: You are.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Today the people find themselves in an extremely extraordinary situation. They feel that their future is being decided step by step by the Tunku, the Prime Minister of the Federation. First, when he made a lengthy speech during the October session of the Federal Parliament last year. Then again when he addressed the U.M.N.O. delegates at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 4th November. And again when he flew to London in mid-November 1961 for exploratory Malaysia talks. I mention this, Sir, because there is a very widespread impression that the British position in Singapore will be replaced by the Federation Government and that that is going to be the constitutional future of Singapore whether we like it or not. Sir, this impression regarding -

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of information.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, this impression -

Mr Speaker: Order, Is the Member giving way?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir. This impression regarding the transfer of power has spread as far as all the Borneo territories. It would be reasonable to expect that if our constitutional future is going to be tied up with the Malaysia scheme and not just a question of merger with the Federation in isolation, there would have been at least an All-Party Conference to discuss the various implications of this scheme from the point of view of Singapore in accordance with past practice in 1956 and 1958. But no. All we know was a statement of support for Malaysia by the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. And then, of course, we learned of the formation of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee at its first meeting in Jesselton on 24th August, 1961, which was supposed to have been a meeting held at C.P.A. level. You will remember, Sir, that I wrote to ask if you, as the President of the C.P.A., knew anything about it and your answer that your knowledge of the matter was as gathered from the newspapers is sufficient testimony of the dictatorial rule of the P.A.P. Government. One would have thought that the P.A.P. would have had the good sense to hold an All-Party Conference to decide on the stand that Singapore should adopt at this Conference and to agree upon a truly representative delegation so that the true voice of Singapore could be heard. But again no. The P.A.P. did not hold an All-Party Conference, nor was Singapore represented by a truly representative delegation at this forum. It was only after criticism was directed against the P.A.P. and after you, Sir, had insisted on representation from the Barisan Sosialis -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Queenstown has got it wrong. It was no question of insisting. It was a question of a conference or discussion and in any event that discussion took place in a Committee meeting of the C.P.A. and should never be made public except by consent of the Executive Committee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will not mention that episode, Sir.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Apologise.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, it was only after criticism was directed against the P.A.P. that a Member of the Barisan Sosialis was included among the Singapore delegates to Kuching recently and to Kuala Lumpur too.

The Prime Minister: If we had taken him to Jesselton, no progress would have been made.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The tragedy of the situation is that the P.A.P. believes that the future of Singapore should lie in the fruition of the Malaysia scheme and its phoney plan, and because of this -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have been listening to this description of the proposed merger which is being referred to as a phoney merger. Does that expression mean the terms of agreement as contained in Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961 which was debated in this House?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I mean that one, Sir, but if -

Mr Speaker: Then I must remind the hon. Member that that Paper has been accepted by this House and, therefore, to describe that Paper as phoney is a reflection on this House. Therefore, no such epithet should be used in connection with that Paper.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because of this, the P.A.P. -

The Prime Minister: Because of what?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - has without hesitation proceeded to commit the whole of Singapore accordingly. Its basic assumption is that in the whole of Singapore the P.A.P. and the P.A.P. alone knows what is best for Singapore. The P.A.P. leadership believes that the people of Singapore should not even query the P.A.P.'s decision about their own future, How can the P.A.P. say that the people will be given an opportunity to decide when the P.A.P. has already decided for us?

Sir, in view of all this, I have no doubt that history will record this phase of our political development -

The Prime Minister: As a folly of the Barisan Sosialis.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Sell-out.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - as a chapter of autocracy in pseudo-democracy.

Sir, the people know only one road of constitutional advance, and that is that the future of Singapore should be planned and decided by the people of Singapore themselves and not by one political Party in conjunction with people outside Singapore.

Sir, at the last sitting, as you have reminded me, Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961 was adopted by the Legislative Assembly. There was no difficulty in getting the Assembly to pass those merger (in inverted commas) proposals of the P.A.P. -

Mr Speaker: Order. Even the inverted commas have an innuendo and must not be used. These are merger proposals vvhich have been accepted by the Assembly and must be referred to as such.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - as the P.A.P. is now hand in glove with the S.P.A. and has the help of seven or eight, extra votes. We in the Barisan Sosialis, and I hope other Opposition Parties as well, have unequivocally rejected the White Paper. But if the P.A.P. respects democracy, then let us come together on an All-Party Conference now [Laughter]. The P.A.P. laughs. It never had any mandate from the people on such Malaysia proposals.

An hon. Member: Have you got one?

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not understand why there is this running com-me'ntary from the opposite Benches [Interruption] Order. When the Speaker is speaking, there must be silence. I would suggest that the Member for Queenstown be given an opportunity of making his speech without unseemly interruptions.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Thank you, Sir, I would ask the P.A.P. that we should now try and seek an agreement on the constitutional advance of Singapore on a different and an entirely new basis from the White Paper, Paper Cmd. 33. If this conference fails to produce a common agreement, then there should be general elections to resolve this problem.

Now, Sir, the Prime Minister laughs, and the P.A.P. has said that a general election is not the way to resolve this problem because the voters, according to the Prime Minister, will be further confused by the multitude of election programmes and party stands on Singapore's constitutional future. The P.A.P. says so, of course, simply because it is not confident of its stand and its pro-gramme being adopted by the majority of the voters. We in the Barisan Sosialis are not afraid of the voters. We are confident the voters will not be confused by the multitude of election programmes and party stands. We are confident the voters will know what programme and what party stand to reject. We are confident the voters will know what programme and what party stand to accept. We trust the wisdom of the people and we feel sure the P.A.P. will be trounced good and proper in a general election now. Whichever Party that comes into power after a general election should be in a better position to plan and decide the constitutional advance for Singapore in a truly democratic way through consultation by way of an All-Party conference and in close consultation with the people.

Sir, I beg to move,

That this Assembly views with grave concern and anxiety the exclusion of the Oppo-sition Parties in the current 'merger' negotiations, and demands that the Government convene forthwith an All-Party Conference to discuss and to agree on all basic questions on the constitutional future of Singapore; and failing agreement, demands that the Govern-ment seek without delay a new mandate from the people.

Question proposed.

3.05 p.m.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is no necessity to second the motion.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Thank you, Sir. Mr, Speaker, Sir, though the P.A.P. has gone so far in its secretive manoeuvring to push through its phoney merger plans -

Mr Speaker: Order. I must remind the Member for Havelock that I have over-ruled that type of expression in connection with this merger plan which has been accepted by the Assembly. If he has a prepared script, I suggest that he cancel the word "phoney".

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, though the P.A.P. has secretly manoeuvred in pushing through its merger plans and cannot retreat now witho'ut losing face with the Tunku, we are nevertheless insisting on calling for an All-Party conference to discuss this extremely important national issue of merger. The P.A.P. which professes to believe in democracy has unfortunately set a very bad example by the way it has carried through the so-called merger negotiations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to repeat what my Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, has said, but I wish to emphasise that for the P.A.P. to treat a national issue as a private party affair is, to say the least, extremely regrettable. Our people have seen the successful functions of All-Party delegations in the past in advancing the constitutional status of Singapore. What we have been seeking so far is that the Parties should first get together to decide on certain basic principles and then to proceed as a united body to negotiate for our constitutional advancement. The P.A.P. unfortunately has done things in exactly the opposite manner. Firstly, it wants to negotiate secretly with the Federation Government and, after reaching agreement on so-called principles, then make a pretence of consulting with the other Parties. What sort of consultation is this when we are told of arrangements after they have already been agreed upon by the Governments of the two territories? The P.A.P. is now treating the merger question as a way out to salvage its own political future. It has a vast interest, so to speak, to see that some kind of political link-up be brought about as soon as possible before the deadline of 1964 when it has to face the people again. The P.A.P. is now hoping, as has been pointed out before, that such arrangements will allow the Federation Government to purge its political opponents before the next general elections.

Sir, perhaps it is useless to appeal to the P.A.P. to refrain from going on in this secretive manner in dealing with a national problem. We know that with the meagre one-man majority in this House, the P.A.P. can do anything it wants. But that does not mean that it is morally justified in conducting the affairs of our people in this manner. The P.A.P. leaders have repeatedly declared before 'that they would not govern without the moral support of the people. Can they say that they now have the moral support of the people? An All-Party conference would have given full expression to the various opinions on the question of merger. If the P.A.P. leaders believe that by pushing through this merger scheme they can save their own political future, then they are going to be sadly mistaken. The real way to stay in power is to go with the people and heed their views and aspirations.

Sir, it is utterly nonsensical for the P.A.P. to suggest that the people will be confused during a general election. The Prime Minister has said that there will be dozens of political Parties with hundreds of candidates at a general election and the people will all be confused. But, Sir, during the last general election, there were 11 political Parties and about 200 candidates contesting for the people's votes. Were our people confused? Were they confused by the various parties and dubious characters springing up on the eve of the general electioo? No. Sir,Instead of being confused, they made a clear-cut decision. The P.A.P. was returned with an overwhelming majority. And we who have been in the P.A.P. know that the people voted the Party to power because of its uncompromising stand against colonialism. The people were then utterly fed up with the previous Government which had conspired with the colonial and reactionary elements to bring widespread repression and suffering to the people of Singapore. The people in 1959, Sir, looked towards the P.A.P. in the hope and expectation that they would get rid of, once and for all, the oppression and repression they had suffered at the hands of the Lim Yew Hock Government. But now they see that this P.A.P. Government, on whom they have placed the trust, are trying its level best to juggle with and manipulate the constitutional future of our people in such a manner that will result in a return of the dark days of the Lim Yew Hock Government.

Sir, let the P.A.P. leaders not think that they can escape responsibility for the oppression and suffering of the workers of Singapore that will follow the merger scheme. Let them not think that just because it will be the Federation Government that will be doing the dirty work, they will escape responsibility. Those who conspire with and make it possible for others to carry out repression of our people will themselves be equally responsible for these acts of repressions. The people are not fools who cannot see through this intricate conspiracy between the P.A.P. and the the reactionary elements in the Federation.

Sir, it is ridiculous for the P.A.P. to say that just because it has merger as one of its many election platforms, it therefore has the people's mandate to bring abo'ut any sort of political link-up with the Federation. For that matter ,merger was on the platform of practically every political Party at that time. The people want to be merged with the Federation but with equality, mutual respect, and mutual benefit, not this present completely one-sided arrangement. The people want to be married with the Federation, and not to be taken in as a mistress.

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems to me that the Member for Havelock is going back to the debate on merger. We are now debating a motion which complains about Opposition Parties not being consulted. That is all. We cannot go back on the debate on merger. It took us long enough.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leaders are refusing elections not because the people will be confused but because the P.A.P. leaders know it will be vanquished. That is the real reason. But, Sir, we are not insisting that a general election must be held so that the P.A.P. can be defeated and that we in the Barisan Sosialis can form the government. No, Sir, we are not interested in becoming Ministers and what-not. All we are interested in is that the people must be consulted on their constitutional future. All we are insisting on is that this question of merger should be treated as a national issue and not a one-Party issue. We are not so much interested in who is in power as in what they are doing. So long as those in power carry out their job properly and follow the wishes of the people, we will always give them our wholehearted support. We are concerned with deeds, Sir, and not with personalities. Let us appeal to the P.A.P. Government not to play politics with the affairs of our people. Let the people be consulted as far as possible at every stage of their constitutional advancement.

3.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker: We cannot have too many hiatuses or "hiati". If no Member wishes to speak, then I will put the question.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday when the Member for Queenstown opened this motion which he himself admitted had gone stale, he made reference to closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. I was going to use the word "stolen". Sir, stealing is not a weakness on this side of the House, but invariably, having regard to what has been going on in some of our branches, I would say that it is an art practised adeptly on the other side of the House. But -

Mr David Marshall (Anson): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I rise to complain of an abuse of privilege by the Minister in alleging that Members on this side of the House indulge in stealing. I make this a formal complaint.

Mr Speaker: I am not aware of any imputation of that nature. If there has been an imputatio'n of that nature, then, of course, the Minister is completely wrong. But I certainly will not at this stage refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. The Member for Anson is, of cpurse, at liberty to file the usual motion.

Mr Rajaratnam: No, Sir, I was just using a simile because of this talk about bolting the door after the horse has been stolen. 1 was just merely following upon that in a similar strain.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: By the P.A.P.!

Mr Rajaratnam: But as far as the motion is concerned, the main complaint of the Barisan Sosialis is that the previous Government - what they call the Lim Yew Hock Govemment - consulted Opposition Members, but that we, on the issue of merger, did not consult the Opposition Members, and did not form an All-Party Committee. The difference is this, Sir. On the specific issue of constitutional change, it arose as a result of a motion passed in this House which was not part of an election programme, and, therefore, it was felt that because of that, an All-Party Committee should be formed to change the Constitution sooner than it was intended. But in this case, the P.A.P. Government was elected on the merger platform. It was known to everybody. Just to refresh the memory of the 13 ex-P.A.P. Members who were elected on the P.A.P. ticket - they forgot they were elected on the P.A.P. ticket, on the P.A.P. platform - they signed a pledge which included reference to the Fourth Anniversary Celebration Souvenir Number, in which this was said, in a long article. I will just read the extract:

'The creation of an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya, Federation plus Singapore,'

Then we went on to say:

'To achieve freedom in an island, we must achieve merger.'

Then we went on to say later on:

'We must face up to the fact that the Alliance leaders who represent the bulk of the

Malay people',

and so on.

'We must allay these fears and create the conditions for merger.'

This testament was subscribed to and signed by every P.A.P. candidate who stood for election. It is quite clear, Sir, that we are carrying out a specific mandate which the people know, and, therefore, there is no need for us to have an All-Party Committee to carry out an election programme. If that is the case, then every time the Minister for Finance devises his Budget, he sets up an All-Party Committee. Or any time the Government announces a programme to im-plement its election promises, there must be an All-Party Committee. Merger is basic to our programme. What has happened that has really annoyed them, Sir, is that merger has come sooner than they expected or sooner than their friends expected - the friends who are not here. They are terrified of merger. There is no doubt that they are temfied of merger, as we will see very soon. One reason why they cannot stop merger -

Mr Speaker: rder. Here again, I think the Minister is going back on the merger debate. I think he should concentrate on perhaps the reasons why the Opposition Parties have been excluded.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, because we were elected on this programme, therefore, we say, politically and morally, we have every right to negotiate to carry out our election programme, and there is no need for us to have an All-Party Committee to decide vvhether or not we should implement our political pro-gramme. The real reason why Members of the Barisan Sosialis are insisting on All-Party Committee discussions and soon is simply this. They want to delay merger, and the only way they can do so is by having an All-Party Committee. As you know, we discussed merger for nearly a fortnight, and it was quite clear that a Committee of that kind would never reach agreement on merger. That was the basis of the demand for an All-Party Committee. It is to delay merger. "Let us have discussions." Then there will be talk about six months, two years or three years, because there will be no agreement on the kind of merger we could have or we should have. Therefore, merger could be postponed indefi-nitely. In any case, what is the point of still asking for an All-Party Committee? We had an All-Party Committee discussing this in this Assembly. As far as I know, Sir, the merger proposals were passed in this Assembly without dissent. The reason, is that the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members, on the pretext that some of their Members were afraid to go home late at night, or because they had no cars, left this Chamber -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Minister is in order in mentioning that incident. I think he is in order in mentioning the fact that the merger proposals have been accepted by this Assembly. Having been accepted by the Assembly, it is a fait accompli, as far as the Assembly is concerned.

Mr Rajaratnam: The point I wanted to make was that they said that an All-Party Committee should be called to discuss the merger proposals. For two weeks this Assembly was converted into an All-Party Committee to discuss the question of merger. They could have taken a stand and said, "No, we vote against it." But as far as we know, when it came to the test to say whether they were for or against the merger proposals,they were not here. That was the point 1 vvanted to make. So what is the point of calling another All-Party Committee when obviously the Barisan Sosialis are not prepared to make a stand? All they want is to prolong things and reopen the question now. As the Member for Queenstown has said - his solution now is this - let us reopen the whole question, conduct merger negotiations on a new basis, and if it fails - and definitely it will fail because we know what their stand is - then they say, let us have fresh elections. That is the proposal now being put forward. But as far as we are concerned, Sir, the merger proposals have been approved by the Assembly and the course of events will proceed whatever stand the Barisan Sosialls might take, or if they stand in the way, then that is their unhappy misfortune.

One of the points made by the Member for Queenstown was that, again as evidence of the dictatorial attitude of the P.A.P. Government - dictatorial in this sense - it is carrying out its election pledge without reference to the Opposition. Another instance, he pointed out, was that even in the case of Malaysia, there was no consultation because nobody supported it. When the Tunku announced the merger proposals, only the P.A.P. supported it. The leader of the Socialist Front, Mr Boestaman, supported it. In fact, he came to see the P.A.P. After the Tunku had announced the Malaysia proposals, Mr Boestaman thought it was a very good thing and he came to see the P.A.P. and said, "What about having a socialist conference on the matter?"

As a result of the C.P.A. conference - one Member of the Barisan Sosialis (he was not a member of the Barisan Sosialis then; he was just an ex-P.A.P. member at that time) was in the C.P.A. conference - we all discussed Malaysia. Arising out of the conference, two Members of the Borneo delegation proposed the formation of a Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee. As the Government, we issued a statement saying that we supported the formation of a Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee. For the first meeting, in Jesselton, the Government sent representatives. As a courtesy, we asked the Opposition whether they would like to send somebody. At that time there was no Barisan Sosialis. There were 13 ex-P.A.P. gentlemen. We consulted the Op-position and they nominated the Member for Geylang Serai. Then there was a complaint by the Member -

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: Correction, if I may, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am not aware of the Opposition having nominated the Member for Geylang Serai, Sir. In fact, I was informed, in answer to my own question in this Assembly, that it was the Governments choice and the Governments appointment.

Mr Rajaratnam: As an act of courtesy, we approached the S.P.A. U.M.N.O. Alliance and said, "Would you nominate one?" As I said, it was purely a Government nomination. We did not have to appoint anybody. Because at that time, the Member for Anson did not make his stand on Malaysia. He did not even say yes or no, as far as I could recollect.

Sir, the whole purpose of the Consultative Committee when it was announced was that only those who supported Malaysia should be members of that Committee. That was made quite clear. There were certain complaints. Then we decided on a second conference in Kuching. We had representation at the C.P.A. level where the C.P.A. would elect a number of people from the Government side and a certain number of people from the Opposition side to the Committee where it was stated quite plainly that only those who believed in Malaysia should join the Committee. The Barisan Sosialis insisted and the Member for Thomson was nominated for the Barisan Sosialis -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: By you.

Mr Rajaratnam: No, Sir. It was not by me; it was by the C.P.A. In fact, the Barisan Sosialis insisted they must be represented, or, at least, the Opposition must be represented, on the understanding that they supported Malaysia. Now, Sir -

Mr Speaker: Order. In fairness to the Barisan Sosialis Member who was appointed, I think that was not the understanding. I think it must be made quite clear that the Executive Committee just appointed five people.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the minutes of the first -

Mr Speaker: Order. The minutes are quite clear on the point. I understand that. But I think, in fairness, the Executive Committee just appointed five people.

Mr Rajaratnam: As I say, in Kuching where the Consultative Committee had its first meeting, it was made quite clear that all those who believed in Malaysia were the only ones who should belong to the Committee.

The Prime Minister: And he said he believed in Malaysia.

Mr Rajaratnam: And it was made quite clear that he himself said he believed in Malaysia. So, therefore, to say that in the case of Malaysia we were acting dictatorially is completely false.

One of the points repeatedly made is that somehow the Barisan Sosialis represent the people - the people this, the people that. They are only 13 Members. There are 26 here.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: They were elected on the P.A.P. ticket.

Mr Rajaratnam: And they were elected on the P.A.P. ticket. To that extent, they have gone under false pretences and they are still sitting there under false pretences. They keep on talking about the people, the people. In fact, the Member for Thomson, when he was at the Malaysia Conference in Kuching, got up and repudiated the delegation. He said he had nothing to do with the Government delegation because - he said - "I speak for the people of Singapore. The other four who are there ... ". He more or less implied 'that he was dissociating himself from the rest, so much so that the Member for Geylang Serai had to get up and pointed out that the Member for Thomson only represented 13 Assemblymen who were formerly elected on the P.A.P. ticket. Nobody knows whether the people still approve of the Barisan Sosialis. They have not been tested. So to keep on talking that the people of Singapore want this or want that, just because the Barisan Sosialis want this or want that, is not the same thing.

The speaker has just now said that even though we have been elected on the merger platform, we should still consult the people before the merger proposals are put through. Do they mean consult the people - 13 Assemblymen - or is it the suggestion, as they have always put fonvard, that if we cannot do that, well, let us have elections?

Sir, the P.A.P. will decide what to do and when to consult the people in its own way. But what it will do is to carry through its election programme without any reference to whatever the Barisan Sosialis might say. In fact, the Barisan Sosialis, unlike us, when they are in difficulties, do not consult the people. As you know, Sir, they went to the U.K. Commission secretly to con&ult and clarify. At least we never did that. We brought our proposals to this Assembly after having negotiated terms which we think are fair and just, and we put it to the whole Assembly to decide whether they approved of them or not. There is nothing secret; there is nothing furtive. The Member for Havelock suggested that our negotiations were secret and furtive and that there were secret manoeuvres. Where was the secrecy? We negotiated some terms. We published the White Paper and we discussed it for two weeks. We are still discussing it.

Anyway, Sir, this motion before the House is like many things that the Bari-san Sosialis is doing in catching up with history. This motion is past history. The merger proposals have been approved in this Assemhly and now we move for-ward. If the Barisan Sosialis are tailing behind what I once called the "loco-motive of history", then I am very sorry. By the time -

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): By P.A.P. machines!

Mr Rajaratnam: - the merger train crosses the Causeway, passes Batu Pahat and Gemas and reaches Kuala Lumpur, the gentleman will still be panting away in this island of Singapore.

3.37 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, it was in June 1960 when the Chairman of the former Hong Lim Branch, at a Party conference of 43 P.A.P. Assemblymen and Party Branch delegates, raised the question of the re-vision of the Singapore Constitution because not only the people felt but I, from my personal experience, during my work, could feel the inadequacies of the Constitution; that we were hamstrung everywhere by those inadequacies. Also, 1 had formed the opinion that the forces of colonialism were still strong. The P.A.P. leadership then, as they are now, were not prepared to fight these forces but were prepared to join and work hand in hand with them. Mr Speaker, Sir, our proposal was to discuss the principle of revision of the Constitudon, at this Party Conference, and later to submit to a Select Committee which would go into minute details. But unfortunately, Sir, this proposal to revise the Constitution was rejected then by 40 of the Assemblymen present and only three of 'them were courageous enough to come out and support the then Hong Lim Branch. Many of the delegates present were covved because of the presence of police personnel and other measures of terror present at the particular con-ference, and our proposal was rejected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, later we brought the proposal to this Assembly. And when the Hong Lim 16 resolution.s were put to the people during the Hong Lim by-election, they were enthusiastically supported. We are happy to state today that rnany of those who disagreed with our views are now coming slovvly to our side and they agree that there should be some form of constitutional revision to give more adequate powers to the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after the defeat of the P.A.P. in two by-elections - the Hong Lim and Anson by-elections - the P.A.P. leadership was, we could feel, trying to save its skin by working out some sort of constitutional somersault. This is contained in the White Paper, which the P.A.P. with the support of the S.P.A. have adopted in this Assembly. But it is one thing to discuss a Bill or any constitutional proposals or any motion in this Chamber and another thing to discuss them dispassionately and objectively clause by clause, and in detail, in the calm and serenity of an All-Party conference.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: No doubt, Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be as many Parties debating in this Assembly, as there will be in an All-Party conference. But it is one thing debating issues here and another thing disoussing issues, for instance, in the coolness of the Select Committee room.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have from the very beginning asked this Government to put forvvard its merger proposals to an All-Party conference. Even the former discredited S.P.A. Govemment, which was then the Labour Front, put forward their proposals for constitutional reforms to an All-Party conference. In addition, it was an All-Party delegation which was sent to England to discuss with the British the details as based on the general principles adopted by the conference. In our opinion, Sir, even though the White Paper was passed in this Assembly by the P.A.P. Assemblymen and the S.P.A. Alliance Assemblymen, when 17 of the Opposition Assemblymen staged a walk-out, I still feel it is not too late for the Government to submit its White Paper proposals to an All-Party conference for further discussion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Government is hesitant to subject itself to the detailed close scrutiny of an All-Party conference because they have something to hide. Sir, radio forums and Chamber of Commerce forums are not necessarily adequate for a close scrutiny of the minute details of the P.A.P. merger proposals. In the same way, a debate in this Assembly is not adequate enough to probe into the details of the P.A.P. merger proposals. Therefore, every Party in the Opposition - and I am sure, for this matter, even the S.P.A., though it has already voted with the Government - will support the convening of this All-Party conference. We sincerely and honestly ask the Government to reconsider the position and submit its White Paper and all its other proposals to an All-Party conference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have asked the Government, after discussion at an All-Party conference, to put forward its proposals to the people in the referendum. After having been pressed by three Parties in the Opposition in the last few days, the Government withdrew the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. The Government, now hard pressed, has given us an assurance that it will continue with the referendum. We prefer a referendum and this has been supported by all Parties in principle -

The Prime Minister: Not by the Barisan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: We support a referendum to thrash out the merger issue. Because it is only one issue, a referendum would be more suitable. The Liberal Socialist Party has the same views as the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis and us on the merger proposals - Automatic citizenship for all Singapore citizens. But in a general election, if the people want to vote for automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens, they have to make up their minds whether to vote for the Liberal-Socialists or the Singapore Congress who have the same stand, or to vote for the Barisan Sosialis or the Workers' Party or the United People's Party. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is on that basis that we have called for a referendum to thrash out this matter of merger. I will even say that the convening and the supervision of the referendum should not be by Government alone but also by the same All-Party Conference, which should decide on the words, and the way the referendum is to be carried out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order that the referendum would be fair and properly conducted, the All-Party Conference should also extend its work and supervise the referendum.

The Prime Minister: Take over the Government.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that that would not be long.

The Prime Minister: Barisan, watch out!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before the House contains three problems. First:

`That this Assembly views with grave concern and anxiety the exclusion of the Opposition Parties in the current "merger" negotiations'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we support this first part of the motion.

The second part of the motion reads:

`That this Assembly demands that the Government convene forthwith an All-Party Conference to discuss and to agree on all basic questions on the constitutional future of Singapore.'

Mr Speaker, likewise, as we have already raised this matter in the Hong Lim Resolutions, we also support this part of the motion.

Thirdly:

`and failing agreement, demands that the Government seek without delay a new mandate from the people.'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not support the third part of the motion.

The Prime Minister: You are a wise man.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we know the tricks of the Government. I have been long enough with them.

As we have said, a referendum is the best way to find out the views of the people on merger. When we fought this present discredited P.A.P. leadership in Hong Lim, we fought on the basic principle that we will come to this House to press the Government to carry out its mandate which they had in 1959 and to see that they will carry on as an honest, clean and responsible Government and that we in the Opposition will egg them on. We have this mandate and, other than the Member for Anson, we have a new mandate. We do not consider the issue of calling for fresh elections at the moment. However, in our present assessment if there is a general election no Party is going to command a majority -

The Prime Minister: So you do not represent the people.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - and it might lead to the same chaotic condition as France. But when the time comes for us to call the Government to resign, we will do so.

3.50 p.m.

The Prime Minister: I was deeply intrigued to listen first to the leader of the Barisan Sosialis and even more now to the leader of the United People's Party. If we are asked seriously in all earnestness to convene these groups together to seek common agreement -

An hon. Member: Knock their heads together.

The Prime Minister: - and if common agreement cannot be reached either because the Barisan Sosialis cannot reach agreement, then you go back to the people for a general election. And here he has the answer right in front of him. The leader of the U.P.P., to whom I will concede on one point, speaks with a better mandate than the Member for Queenstown because he has renewed it.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: After thrashing the P.A.P.!

The Prime Minister: Yes, that may be so, but, I tell the Member for Nee Soon this. The Member for Hong Lim, whatever his shortcomings - and he has quite a few for which he has paid bitterly and will pay over the years even more bitterly - is a very, very deep man. He understands the art of survival. But the Member for Queenstown, being a rugger forward, does not. He rushes blindly forth, which is a great quality in a rugger forward -

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

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we had the support of the people of Hong Lim and I do not need the compliment of the Kiss of Judas.

The Prime Minister: I would feel a little bit squeamish if I were asked to deliver a kiss. It might be mistaken for -

An hon. Member: Adultery!

The Prime Minister - various dishonourable intentions. Never mind, we will let that pass. Honestly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I doubt whether if one of the qualifications of being allowed to speak in this privileged Chamber was a medical examination by a psychiatrist -

Mr David Marshall: Would you survive?

The Prime Minister: Maybe not. Sir, but I am quite prepared to submit myself to one and I think, if we all submitted ourselves to it, the people of Singapore would be less confused and less inflicted with all the lunacies and hallucinations -

Mr Speaker: Order. Is all this necessary? Let us come to the debate which is a simple one. The Barisan Sosialis complain that the Opposition Parties have not been consulted. That is all. Let us not talk about lunacies, hysteria, and so on.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the others did not do these things, we would be talking on the debate. There were three major speeches from the Opposition and they did not talk on the motion. They spoke incidentally on the motion. One talked about the Hong Lim Resolutions. Another talked about a mandate from the people and general elections. And I have to reply because it is my duty to reply to these things. If you feel that these things should not be replied to because they are not the subject of the debate -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am suggesting to the Prime Minister that all these personal allusions are completely irrelevant and out of order. I do not know why these personal allusions are creeping into this debate.

The Prime Minister: Since you have asked me the question, I have to give you the reply, it is because it is in the nature of this House. And I say if the House continues to conduct itself as it has only yesterday over the Banking Bill, the Government was egged on to be more democratic, zeroes were being added, and so on - we will soon reduce democracy and this legislative Chamber to a figure of fun. I want to say in deadly earnestness to the Members of the Opposition now, "Cut out the hypocrisy and let us really come down to brass tacks." Everybody knows that things are going to happen in 1962 - not just merger and Malaysia; other things are going to happen. The leader of the United People's Party knows for his own political survival that certain things had better happen. He is no innocent. He was a member of the Internal Security Council. He knows what this is all about. He has remained silent. He is hoping not for general elections now - it is bad - but after the inevitable denouncement is over. Everybody knows that - so does the Member for Anson.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of information, please.

The Prime Minister: Sure.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Prime Minister was talking from his personal experience as a Member of the Opposition in the Lim Yew Hock Government days. There were rumours in town that he got the Member for Cairnhill to do certain things. And I wonder whether he was relating his experience.

The Prime Minister: He was a member of the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. then and we calculated wisely and well. That is why we were able to set the pace. Let me inform him, the Member for Anson, and the Member for Havelock that this time it is different. I will tell them why it is different, because this time it is no longer anti-colonialism. They are going to fight the nationalists this time. They are not just going to fight a dying anti-colonial regime. And I say when they have to fight their own people, the proposition they are confronted with is a different one.

Sir, first, let me speak on the main purpose of the motion as it was drafted. Nobody wants to take any responsibility for having to reduce this chaotic situation in Singapore - economically untenable, politically chaotic. From time to time, these things will recur until it has found its place as part of a larger whole. The Member for Hong Lim subscribed to it in toto as a member of the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. when we issued the Fourth Anniversary Souvenir number. Every Member on the Opposition side - the Barisan Sosialis and the United People's Party - signed a pledge before they were candidates in the last election and I read the one signed by the Member for Queenstown.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Are these pledges relevant to the issue before the House?

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Prime Minister can explain how it is relevant.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the right of the Government to do what it is its duty to do is being questioned. It had no mandate to discuss merger. It should have consulted the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members - the people. And what I want to show very simply is far from that, Mr Speaker, Sir. They undertook solemnly on oath and under seal - a photostat copy of the original is still with the Treasurer of the P.A.P. - to abide by the Fourth Anniversary policy statement. This is the pledge of Dr Lee Siew Choh, the Member for Queenstown. `I, Lee Siew Choh of No. 358G, Dunearn Road, Singapore, 11, hereby acknowledge that I have read and understood the Fourth Anniversary Celebration Souvenir issue of the Petir, the organ of the People's Action Party, published on the 22nd of November, 1958, and the Five-Year Plan of the PAP. announced at the Special Party Congress on

Saturday, 25th April, 1959, and I declare that I am

in full, agreement with the P.A.P.'s policy as set out therein. I hereby covenant with the P.A.P. that if I am elected to the Legislative Assembly and if ever I should later resign from or be expelled from the P.A.P., I shall forthwith resign from the Singapore Legislative Assembly. Dated this 11th day of May, 1959. Signed, sealed and delivered by the above-named Lee Siew Choh in the presence of Tann Wee Tiong [Adviser now to the Barisan Sosialis].'

This is a solemn undertaking given. We do not want to enforce it in a court of law.

Mr David Marshall: You cannot.

The Prime Minister: They know that, too. But that is the worth of the word of the 13 Members opposite in the Barisan and the three Members in the U.P.P. Let us be honest. What did they say to be elected, before they were candidates of the P.A.P.? They had read, understood fully and supported this document issued by the Central Executive Committee of which the Member for Hong Lim was then Treasurer - "Basic Aims of the Party", "The New Phase After Merdeka", "Our Tasks and Policy". Let me now read from page 2 the relevant extracts to show beyond any doubt that we are honour bound to carry out what we have promised - to bring about a reunification of these two territories: `On November 21, 1954, we stated, "Though, because of the division of Malaya into two territories, we are technically a political party operating in Singapore, we shall in all our approach to the problems of this country disregard the constitutional division. We are as actively interested in the problems of our fellow Malayans in the Federation as we are in those of Singapore. When Malayans in the Federation who agree with our aims, join us, we shall work throughout Malaya." * * * * * We must face tip to the facts, that the Alliance leaders do represent the bulk of Malay people in the Federation, in that their attitude on the issue of merger is a reflection of the present fears of the Malay raayat. It is, therefore, our duty to clarify the position of the people of Singapore, principally the Chinese. We must allay these fears and create the conditions for merger. This is our immediate task. To achieve freedom it is no longer just a simple question of fighting the British. We must also resolve the two fears which make the Malay majority in the Federation not want the Chinese majority in Singapore. * * * * * This is even more true now than four years ago. For to achieve freedom in an island we must achieve merger. Singapore by itself, an island of 224 square miles with a population of 1.5 million living mainly on its trade with the Federation and Indonesia, cannot hope for anything more than the status of Hongkong or Taiwan. * * * * * Let there be no doubts on this point. The problem after merdeka in the Federation is quite different from that before merdeka. Now for the first time the people are confronted with the vital issues that will determine the shape and character of the Malaya to come. And the first issue is the question of language.'

and so on. Is there any doubt what we stood for - the basic and principal aim of the party? To the Member for Queenstown: if he keeps on repeating that he represents the people, I say, here is a covenant signed under seal. Although it is a bit belated - six months - honour it!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You go along to Tanjong Pagar and I will resign.

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: I am still in the P.A.P., Sir. I am still carrying out the aims and objectives of the Party.

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Let me answer the Member for Havelock. I think, whoever wrote his speech - he did not write it; I mean let us be fair. I want to be fair to the man. The English is not his, the thoughts are not his, but he understands that a grave error of judgment was made. All that they have done really was to help bring about merger by convincing the Federation that the 1960 analysis of the P.A.P. was absolutely correct. This was the Central Executive Party policy statement published in the 6th Anniversary issue.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown often wonders why these things have happened in the way he never expected them to happen. So does the Member for Nee Soon. I can understand why they feel, in the words of the motion, "grave concern and anxiety". It is written on their faces, everyone of them. "Grave concern and anxiety" and the perilous steps they have taken in jeopardising and exposing the intentions of their manipulators, not of them, I have stated publicly, not in the privilege of this Chamber, where everyone stood. The only man on the Opposition benches now in the Barisan who I say has made up his mind mainly for ideological considerations is the Member for Thomson. He believes that the Communists will win. He told me that. He also told the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Finance. And he is not going to take a stand against them. He decides to go with them. But the others have decided for different reasons. The Member for Havelock - for a different reason from the Member for Queenstown; and he for a very different reason from the Member for -

Mr David Marshall: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We keep coming back to the pet subject of the Prime Minister. Could we restrain him to the issues in respect of the motion?

Mr Speaker: I think the Prime Minister is, in fact, going into too much detail in touching on this particular aspect of the motion. Let us come back to the broad principles of the motion.

The Prime Minister: Surely, Mr Speaker. I am asking Members of this Assembly, including the Member for Anson who finds all this distasteful, this question. Does anybody in his right mind expect that if one brings to an All-Party conference all these minds, there will be a concensus of minds? For two weeks, to the point of utter tedium and boredom, we heard nothing but tirade after tirade which can leave nobody with any doubts that if anybody can bring about a concensus of minds on merger, he must be either a superman or a hypnotist to take them out of their own personalities. The Member for Anson may or may not believe this, but he at least makes a pretence of it for the show of it - discussion, and so on. The Member for Queenstown does not bother about it. He is a bit new and straightforward. He tried rugger as a rugger forward, and a very good rugger forward he was too, I was told. I will tell him now why these things have happened in the way they did.

In 1960 we analysed for him and he read this with approval - "Long-term objectives", page 3:

`In following and countering the twists and turns of the political propaganda of opposing parties, let us never forget that the people will never trust a party which breaks faith with them.'

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear!

`We have clearly stated that we stand for an independent, democratic, non-Communist. Socialist Malaya. We have never said that we stood for an independent, democratic, non-Communist, Socialist Singapore. First because an "independent Singapore" was never our objective. Second because we realise that a Socialist Singapore is an economic impossibility. We can analyse this in detail when we discuss the political line recently tried by certain Left-wing adventurers on an independent Singapore.'

And then we went on to tell our followers in the P.A.P. and outside why merger is inevitable.

`To go forward blindly on the simple anti-colonial line, after the Federation has been divided from Singapore and has achieved political independence is to go into a blind alley. As we said in our Party statement: "To achieve freedom it is no longer just a simple question of fighting the British". That is not to say that we should stop fighting the British colonialists. But if that is all we do then we deserve to fail for our own stupidity. These Left-Wing Adventurers are driven by the logical consequences of their argument to only fight the colonialists and to do nothing which is constructive until complete independence, to say that they want to fight for an independent Singapore.

We realised after 31-8-57 that only to fight the British and do nothing constructive until complete independence cannot produce an independent Malaya, because the Federation was already independent. It can only produce an independent Singapore.

... But we say that an independent Singapore once established cannot lead to merger by consent. If merger comes it would then be by the conquest of one over the other. For an independent Singapore once established, even for an interim period, will create a situation whereby vested interests, based on Chinese appeals, will become permanent. For once independence is achieved in this island city, 75 per cent of whose population is Chinese, the logical consequence would be that the Chinese chauvinist sentiments which are at present being muted and slowly dissolved because of the objective of independence through merger, will openly and aggressively come to the fore.'

Page 6:

`Let us face the facts. An independent Singapore will not result in merger, for Singapore will become an increasingly Chinese City with Chinese from the Federation, and perhaps some from Indonesia as well seeking refuge in Singapore...

Merger inevitable

Merger between the Federation and Singapore is historically inevitable...

The reason is simply that the Federation cannot afford to have a hostile Singapore. So far we have emphasised the importance of the Federation to Singapore. Lest there is any danger of forgetting it, let us remind people that Singapore is important to the Federation militarily and politically.'

Mr David Marshall: And economically.

The Prime Minister: `Militarily and politically Singapore and the Federation are one unit. Colonialism has made a technically international frontier on the Straits of Johore and created two states. But no soldier can devise a front to make Singapore and Federation two instead of one military situation. He who conquers Malaya conquers Singapore. The Japanese proved it. And conversely he who holds Singapore absorbs Malaya. Stamford Raffles proved it. Perhaps it is worthwhile remembering that it is the same British Army, on both sides of the causeway, though on the Federation side it is there by invitation on friendly defence treaty with the Federation Army. And no politician has yet devised a method to prevent news and events from spreading across the causeway. Every political action in the Federation, in language, education, taxation, and all other fields of government, affects and has repercussion in Singapore.'

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know how much longer the Prime Minister is going to read. The Prime Minister is only entitled to read extracts. And possibly these are details which are going a little far away from the motion.

The Prime Minister: I have, Mr Speaker, Sir, eight more lines to go.

`And the converse is equally true however much people may try to minimise the reactions.

Tacit proof of this was the extremely sensitive Federation reaction to a Russian trade mission to Singapore to the E.C.A.F.E. Conference. It was an acknowledgement that Singapore was vital to the security of the Federation. If a Russian rubber buying trade delegation can cause all this anxiety, what would happen if hostile forces captured the Singapore Government and actively subverted the Federation from across the causeway. A hostile independent Singapore must lead to retaliation, conflict and in the end, to conquest. The Federation can sit back and say they do not want Singapore only because the British forces are ensuring that no hostile or Communist Government takes over power in Singapore.

But this delicate balance cannot last forever, The present balance of power and forces is an interim one. For finally the Singapore and Federation positions will have to be contained by one authority, or the Federation will run the risk of having Singapore fall into hostile hands and later have to face more dangerous military and political consequences.'

And I thank the Barisan Sosialis and their manipulators, principally the Secretary-General for the fierce statements he has issued, in bringing home that thesis conclusively during Anson and after Anson. Let us draw aside all this veil of public pretence.

The Member for Havelock knows what the future holds in store. So does the Member for Hong Lim. So does the Member for Anson.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Mr David Marshall: I do not know what these threats mean, and I am rising to object to this straying from the main issue. Can we please come back to the motion?

Mr Speaker: I have indicated that those extracts were perhaps going into details and were, in fact, straying away from the motion. But the Prime Minister was going on a different theme and I have not had a chance to make up my mind on what he was going to say.

The Prime Minister: What I was going to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, is simply this. Nobody really is bothered about an All-Party conference.

Mr David Marshall: I am.

The Prime Minister: If the Member for Anson is, I say to him, he has got one here everyday. He moved a motion yesterday. He was unable to get the Opposition to be with him on a simple thing - the whole of the Opposition. The U.P.P. was against it. He pleaded passionately. He finally found himself abstaining when the Barisan Sosialis voted against a Commission of Inquiry to investigate specific allegations which the Member for Upper Serangoon had made and which the Member for Tea Payoh had made. Does anybody in his right mind believe that an All-Party conference of the same people here in this Chamber, just because they will meet in some other chamber, whether it is cool or hot, will produce anything other than the most riotous confusion? Everybody is interested in having his say. We have allowed everybody to have his say two weeks of it and more. We are still talking outside this Chamber, explaining, arguing, explaining and more explaining.

Apart from the desire just to create confusion, to which the Member for Anson, wittingly or unwittingly, lends himself, the Member for Hong Lim also wittingly lends himself, because he is definitely one who is well versed in these matters of propaganda. He talks about automatic conversion of Federation citizenship. He knows it is not possible. There have been clear and categorical explanations, clear and categorical statements from the Tunku.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of information, Sir.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: If we have an All-Party conference, Sir, the Government will be able to tell us whether it agrees to the principle or not. Whether the Federation will give in or rot is a different matter. But if an All-Party conference accepts automatic conversion, then we can negotiate with the Federation for automatic conversion. Would the Prime Minister state his stand as to whether he agrees to the principle of automatic conversion?

The Prime Minister: I stand for everything. I take anything people want to give me on behalf of the people of Singapore. If they want to give automatic citizenship to Singapore citizens, surely we will welcome it.

Mr Low Por Tuck: You should ask for it.

The Prime Minister: But do I want to prove that I deliberately want to wreck negotiations? Do Members of the Opposition believe for one moment that Members of U.M.N.O. sitting here in this Chamber are going to agree to this? And if there is no agreement, says the Member for Queenstown - general election. What is all this about? They know what it is all about. Everybody wants to meet the Tunku and discuss matters. Surely, most of all the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, who has tried to fix two appointments with the Tunku and has not succeeded - one via the Member for Geylang Serai. He wants to explain that he is not a Communist and why he is in support of merger, and another via other sources, other friends. I say I am quite happy. I mean, if that is what he really wants - an All-Party conference in order to fix this opportunity for explanation and disavowal of evil intentions - I will try my best. Everybody in Kuala Lumpur knew the Member for Anson went up to have lunch with the Tunku. The Press knew it.

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

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: It is not true that the Press knew it. I think, Mr Speaker, you have informed the Prime Minister that it is out of order to mention the private conduct of a Member outside. There are matters, Sir, which are not derogatory but which it is improper to make public for some reasons, and I do ask that the order of the House be enforced.

Mr Speaker: I have, in fact, ruled that the personal conduct of a Member must not be referred to except on a substantive motion. The Prime Minister must abide by the decision of the Chair until he files a substantive motion.

The Prime Minister: On this particular point - I do not want to press it unless it is of any importance at all. But I say in that case he will compel me, because this is public conduct. I am not interested in the Member for Anson's private life. I congratulated him when he was given a daughter recently. I am not interested in that. But the moment the former Chief Minister goes up with members of the Malaysia delegation and meet the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya for lunch, I say it is public conduct.

Mr Byrne: File a motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have accepted the statement of the Member for Anson that it was, in fact, personal conduct. He might have just gone up for lunch. I do not know, but I have accepted that statement. Having accepted that statement, the ruling must follow. If the Prime Minister wishes to challenge that ruling on that evidence - that the Member for Anson has in fact stated openly in this Chamber that it was personal conduct and I have accepted that statement - the Prime Minister is at liberty to do so.

The Prime Minister: That was what I stated, Mr Speaker, Sir -

Mr David Marshall: Will the Prime Minister give way on a matter of explanation?

The Prime Minister: Surely.

Mr David Marshall: I want no misunderstanding, Mr Speaker, Sir,I went up entirely unofficially. It was not intended that there should be any Press communiques, any statements, any publicity. I regret that the information which the Prime Minister had because of his personal relations should be made public of what I consider to be a personal approach to the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Am I to believe then that the Member for Anson does not consider that personal conduct? Is that the impression he gave me?

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry. I do not quite follow that.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Standing Order which I referred to and which was not dissented from by the hon. Member for Anson was Standing Order 46, paragraph (10), which says:

`The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose.'

And I understood the Member for Anson to say that it was, in fact, personal conduct not connected with his public affairs, On that basis, I ruled that any reference to that visit to the Tunku was out of order. If I have misunderstood the Member for Anson, then, of course, that ruling must be revoked.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, let me clarify. My visit to Kuala Lumpur and to the Prime Minister of the Federation was, in fact, connected with the public affairs of the State. But I repeat that I do not think it is proper for the Prime Minister to divulge information he has obtained confidentially.

Mr Speaker: Order. In that case it was not and it cannot be a point of order for the Chair. I think the Member for Anson probably misled the Chair. That ruling, in the light of what the Member for Anson has now said, must, of course, be reversed. What the Member for Anson asks the Prime Minister to do is not the concern of the Chair. If the Prime Minister, in spite of the request of the Member for Anson, wishes to refer to this visit, then he is at liberty to do so.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore, I would be glad if I may, from time to time, have a little forbearance from this House, because I do not press a point unless I am prepared to press it to its logical conclusion. I have no intention of embarrassing the Member for Anson. But I have every intention to see that there is no double talk and double think and double presentation. That is important. I do not claim privilege in this Chamber.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that I have been indulging in double talk or double think? I am not a P.A.P. member yet.

The Prime Minister: If he were, he would not be.

An hon. Member: What is the purpose?

The Prime Minister: It is quite simple. To clarify issues before the public. Here is a wicked Government, by the implications of this motion, supported by the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim, that does not wish to consult all Parties, that wants to railroad the merger proposals through. I mentioned his going up to see the Prime Minister of the Federation not because I got the information from the Prime Minister of the Federation, but because the whole of the Press at the Malaysia conference knew it.

An hon. Member: What?

The Prime Minister: So be it.

An hon. Member: What did they know?

The Prime Minister: The Minister for Culture knew. Yes, everybody knew it. That is part of the troubles of the Member for Anson. The things he does not want people to know often are public knowledge. But whatever it is, he is well informed, and he knows it -

Mr David Marshall: Of what?

The Prime Minister: He knows what the views of the Tunku are on many things. He knows that there is no question of automatic citizenship.

Mr David Marshall: Does the Minister for Culture tell you that?

The Prime Minister: No. He does not have to tell me that. I would suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, we all would be better off if instead of an All-Party conference, when only pandemonium will emerge, we all sat down and wrote out honestly and sincerely what we all believe in.

Mr David Marshall: Can you?

The Prime Minister: Surely. And then the sheep will be parted from the goats. Whether it is the P.A.P. Government in office, whether it is any other government, I tell the Member for Havelock this: there will be merger; there will be Malaysia; and there will be a conflict between nationalism and communism, and those who stand on the side of the Communists must expect the nationalist forces to collide with them because the Communists attack the nationalists -

Mr David Marshall: What about the socialists?

The Prime Minister: Ah, the socialists. It depends upon whether they are non-Communists or just anti-colonial Communist socialists -

Mr Rajaratnam: Pro-Communist songs.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr Rajaratnam: Or those who sing pro-Communist songs.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: What is this?

Mr Speaker: Order. There seem to be backseat drivers egging the Prime Minister on. I would ask him now to get on with the motion. I think he has made his point, and he appears to be repeating what he started to say.

The Prime Minister: And we are asked at this late stage, Mr Speaker, Sir, to: try and get together with the Barisan Sosialis to reach a new basis for agreement. There can be no agreement with the Barisan Sosialis for the simple reason that they cannot afford to agree to merger. It is as simple as that. They have agreed here, yes. They have agreed in the Fourth Anniversary Souvenir, yes. They have agreed in a statement signed by Mr Lim Ching Siong and five others when they were released from prison, solemnly pledging that they supported the stand of the Party in the hope - but of course this is never going to happen since the Tunku does not want merger, so it is quite safe to agree to a nationalist demand for reunification - but the time has come when reunification will take place even if the P.A.P. disappears, even if the P.A.P. decides to fight against it. This is as inevitable as the rising of the sun. We analysed that - why it is going to happen. We are asked to sit down with people who cannot afford to have merger because they know that the Central Federation Government has made no bones about this. That they, in turn, when the time comes intend to put a check to Communist activities.

The Member for Queenstown may have been puzzled why he was led up the garden path into breaking away from the P.A.P. and joining the Barisan Sosialis with a group of Communists who assured him he was going to be in power. The Member for Nee Soon, Deputy Prime Minister; the Member for Havelock, Finance Minister. They are not interested.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, do forgive my repetitious request that the Prime Minister confine himself to the issue.

Mr Speaker: I suppose the Prime Minister is now winding up.

The Prime Minister: He has the liberty in a democratic chamber to wind up in his own fashion, Mr Speaker, Sir. And if he wishes to -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is entitled in a democratic fashion to wind up, but he must be relevant.

The Prime Minister: I have to reply to the Member for Havelock, Mr Speaker, Sir. He made these points. He is not interested in being a Minister. I am just telling him why his ambitions did not come true and why we are now asked to meet and confer with them to reach agreement, which is impossible because they cannot afford to agree to merger in order that then, according to the Member for Queenstown, there could be general elections, which according to the Member for Hong Lim, would lead to a chaotic "French" situation. Is there any sense in all this'? In the end, I say, like in the words of a famous refrain, "Whatever will be, will be." And good luck to those who made the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons and the wrong time in a wrong manner.

4.35 p.m.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, all that the Prime Minister was trying to do was to beat around the bush -

The Prime Minister: Did you not sign the pledge?

Mr Bani: - and create a lot of vague talk in the hope that the basic issues that were raised by the Member for Queenstown will be lost. There is no point for the Prime Minister to waste time talking of the P.A.P. manifesto containing the fact that the Party stands for unification of Singapore with Malaya, because nobody in this House has ever said that we are against the unification of our two territories. Sir, I think you will agree with me that we spent more than two weeks putting forward our case, and in none of our speeches did we ever say that we were against unification of the two territories. But for the Prime Minister to equate unification of the two territories with the sort of sell-out plan that his Government has worked out -

Mr Speaker: Order. By using the expression "sell-out plan", is the Member referring to the memorandum setting cut the heads of agreement for merger as contained in Cmd. 33 of 1961?

Mr Bani: I am referring to the White Paper, Sir, which sets out -

Mr Speaker: Order. If that is so, then I have indicated already in no uncertain terms that that memorandum has been accepted by the Assembly and, therefore, to say that what the Assembly has accepted is in the nature of a "sell-out plan" is a reflection on the Assembly and cannot be allowed.

Mr Bani: The point that I want to make is quite simple. If it is the intention of the Prime Minister or the P.A.P. Government to try and equate the sort of merger plans that have been negotiated by them with the desire of the people to have genuine unification of the two territories, then I say it is titter nonsense because, Sir, as I was saying, in the course of two weeks in this House, those of us in the Barisan Sosialis explained in great detail why we thought the terms that the P.A.P. Government had negotiated would not constitute genuine reunification. Sir, I do not want to be like the Prime Minister and quote pages from P.A.P. propaganda documents. I do not think this is the place or the time to indulge in theoretical arguments over certain theses the P.A.P. leaders have made. But all that I want to state here in very clear terms is this. Nobody doubts the fact that in 1959, when the P.A.P. ran for the elections, it had merger as an issue. If we go through all the election documents, speeches made by all the P.A.P. Ministers during the elections, one will note that there was no definition of this word "merger". At that time, the Prime Minister did not tell the people of Singapore that when the P.A.P. said merger, they were thinking of a sort of merger that they have now negotiated. They did not tell the people of Singapore that in their merger plan they wanted to make the people of Singapore second-class citizens -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Thomson is now going back on a debate which we have had. As he has indicated, we did have a 14-day debate. He can just touch on that in passing, but not go into details.

Mr Bani: Actually, Sir, it is not my intention to go back to the debate. I just want to make replies to some of the points the Prime Minister raised just now. As I was saying, the main point here is that during the elections the form and substance of merger was never explained to the people, for one simple reason, and that is that at that time nobody thought merger would be what the P.A.P. says merger is now. Ever since 1946, ever since the separation of the two territories when the call for unification of the two territories was made, everybody accepted the fact that merger means Singapore going in as one constituent State in the Federation of Malaya, enjoying the same privileges, enjoying the equal status as any other State in the Federation of Malaya. Today, the arrangement the P.A.P. has made is quite definitely not merger in the sense of the word. Therefore, I think it is a waste of time for the Prime Minister or for any other Minister or any other Member of the Government at this stage of the debate on this motion to try and say that this was the P.A.P. pledge and that the Barisan Sosialis have gone away from the P.A.P. and therefore they have broken the election pledge. We are all associated with the election pledge, and we state quite categorically that we stand for merger. But for complete and genuine merger which will bring about genuine unity of our people and not for any other arrangement which will bring about greater disunity.

Sir, this motion before us indeed is one that is long overdue for debate. Sir, you will appreciate it is not the fault of the Barisan Sosialis. This motion was filed a long time ago; a long time before the White Paper was debated here. If it is only possible to debate this motion today here, then I am sure the Government Members themselves know the reasons. Sir, although we know that the terms and conditions for the so-called merger have been negotiated by the P.A.P. Government, although perhaps it is too late for the Prime Minister of Singapore to go back and reopen negotiations, nevertheless, we feel, for record purposes, this motion must be gone through and our views recorded. Sir, merger, or for that matter any constitutional advancement, is not something that affects the interests of the Prime Minister alone. Sir, if merger were to mean the Prime Minister getting a Dato or a Tun, then we say it is immaterial. We are not concerned with what happens to the Prime Minister of Singapore on merger. We are not concerned with what happens to the Prime Minister in a situation where there is constitutional advancement. Sir, we are concerned with the fact that if you talk of constitutional advancement, then the people's views must be fairly assessed. It is important that you talk of the desire of the people when you negotiate for constitutional advancement. It is useless for the Prime Minister to say that he had negotiated these terms, come to this Assembly, and put them forward saying, "You agree or you do not agree - these are the terms."

Sir, the principle of having an All-Party meeting and having a common decision before negotiating for constitutional advancement does not imply that Government negotiates, arrives at a settlement first and then tries to push it down the throats of the people of Singapore. I am sure the P.A.P. Government will admit that in spite of all the failings of the previous Government - a Government which I consider to have been more reactionary than the P.A.P. Government - at least it had the courtesy to call an All-Party meeting; at least it had the courtesy to take an All-Party team to London to negotiate for a constitutional arrangement. The simple point is if we are talking of merger or any other form of constitutional change, we must bear in mind that it is bound to affect the lives of all the people. And in a democratic society with various political groups operating, it is not the monopoly of the P.A.P. to go and negotiate on its own.

Sir, we regard merger as a national issue and we would like to see the Government treating it as a national issue. I say that we want to be merged with the Federation of Malaya and not submerged into the Federation of Malaya.

Sir, we have said in the motion here that if there should be no agreement in the All-Party meeting on all points of the constitutional arrangement, then the Government should seek a new mandate. Sir, I wish to explain here that we pressed for elections before. We still tell the Government that if they cannot fulfil the aspirations of the people, then they should quit and resign.

Mr Byrne: You resign first.

Mr Bani: But we do not want people like the Prime Minister to say all sorts of things and get away with them. Sir, we would like to say quite categorically that we told the Government to resign not because we want power, not because we want to be Ministers, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, etc. Sir, so long as any government represents the views of the people, we lend our support to it. We are satisfied that this Government does not any longer represent the views of the people.

Sir, the excuse that the P.A.P. gave for not wanting to hold elections to determine this merger issue was that, according to them, there would be too many candidates and too many symbols and the people would be confused. This is an utterly ridiculous excuse, because if you follow that, then it must logically mean that in 1959, when the P.A.P. stood for election, the people were also confused because there were also too many candidates and too many symbols. It is a lame excuse that the P.A.P. is putting forward to the people.

Sir, we were disturbed to note that even the Referendum Bill has now been deferred. I do not know but there is a rumour in town that the P.AP. is quite fearful of holding a referendum now. But we tell them this quite clearly, that it is better for them to consult the people.

Sir, the Prime Minister has said very clearly today - this was the only part of his speech that I thought was relevant to the debate; in the past whenever we said that the Government was preparing for repressive action, whenever we said they wanted to take anti-democratic repressive action against their political opponents, he said that it was Communist propaganda - coming from the horse's mouth, that so many things are going to happen in 1962. He said, not merger but "so many other things are going to happen in 1962." I think it is correct to say that everybody has a very clear understanding of exactly what the Prime Minister has said. Sir, I do not know the purpose of that. All that he means is that in 1962 perhaps the Barisan Sosialis may not exist. All that he means is that maybe some of us will disappear, maybe taken away as the guests of honour of the Government - maybe Changi Gaol, Batu Gajah; we do not know where. But as I was saying, Sir, I do not know the purpose of the Prime Minister by saying it. But if he thinks that he is trying to intimidate us, then I say that he is wasting his breath and his time, because people like us are not easily intimidated by repressive talk. The Prime Minister ought to know it, Sir. He was at one time fighting a very repressive Government. I do not know what private arrangement he had with the former Chief Minister but, nevertheless, on the open front he was fighting tl1e repressive Government. He knows that all this talk does not frighten people. All that I want to tell the Prime Minister - he is not here but the Deputy Prime Minister is here - is that as people who have for some time worked in muss organisations they ought to realise that the more repressive they become the more they "anchor" the people. You do not frighten and muzzle the people into bending down because you talk of guns and gaols in an intimidatory tone.

Sir, we have no doubts whatsoever in our minds. The Tunku has said - I do not have the newspapers with me-in the Federal Parliament, "Singapore has more strikes in one month than the Federation of Malaya has in three years. We want to help Singapore to reduce the number of strikes. I do not know how to do it. But my Minister for the Interior says that he knows how to do it." It is all very clear. But what is important here is this. All that the Prime Minister has said has merely confirmed what we have been saying. Because the P.A.P. leadership today finds itself isolated, it does not have `the guts, like the previous Lim Yew Hock Government had, to take direct action by itself. It wants to work out a constitutional arrangement whereby someone else will do its dirty job.

Sir, it is no use for the P.A.P. to talk of being a socialist Party, anti-colonial, nationalist, etc. It is very simple. In this talk of merger and Malaysia, the P.A.P. has proved by its own actions very clearly that it is isolated from all socialist support.

Sir, the P.A.P. has not worked and seen eye to eye with the Socialist Front in the Federation of Malaya. It has not worked and seen eye to eye with the Party Ra'ayat in Brunei. It is the same with the Sarawak United People's Party. Sir, the line can be easily seen today. The P.A.P. stands on one side today with the S.P.A., the British and the Alliance Government of the Federation of Malaya. On the other side, you see the socialist Parties. I am sure, Sir, you will not allow me to expound on the theory the Prime Minister was trying to develop, that the P.A.P. are nationalist and that all those who disagree with them are necessarily Communists. But I tell them this, Sir, if they want to measure the extent of nationalist feelings amongst the people, let them not use their type of merger as the yardstick because that is not the yardstick.

Sir, I do not want to say very much in conclusion except that I had the impression that the Prime Minister - Sir, right now, I do not know whether you believe in magic but I -

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): The Minister for Culture is one.

Mr Bani: Yes, but far from being a magician, all that the Prime Minister is trying to do is to juggle with words. The latest jugglery is by using words like "merger", "Malaysia", "Communist", and "nationalist". Sir, as far as Singapore is concerned, I do not know why the Minister for Culture was talking just now about what happened in Kuching. For a moment I was wondering whether this was a debate on the Malaysia motion or on the motion moved by the Member for Queenstown. I do not want to reply in detail to what the Minister for Culture said on Malaysia. But all that I want to say is that insofar as Singapore is concerned, Malaysia and merger mean one and the same thing

• i.e. P.A.P. type of phoney merger.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are nearing tea-time and probably I will be saved the trouble of standing up to over-rule the word "phoney" in connection with this merger debate. That word must be withdrawn.

Mr Bani: I withdraw the word. Nevertheless, the point is that merger and Malaysia to the people of Singapore mean the same thing - the sort of arrangement that they have come to and the people know what it is.

Mr Speaker: It is time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, merger is the natural and simplest form for our political evolution. Today the issue of merger is tied up with the issue of Malaysia, a very worthwhile concept not only for us and for the Federation, but also for the neighbouring territories in Borneo. In these circumstances, the issue of merger takes on a far wider meaning and graver importance than even our own political needs.

If Singapore rejects a referendum on the P.A.P. proposals, then not only will there be no merger between Singapore and the Federation, but there will be no Malaysia at all, for Singapore is the pivot and the cornerstone of Malaysia. Let us recognise its importance in this context and in this concept. There is reason to believe that an honest referendum put to the people would uncompromisingly result in a rejection of the White Paper proposals.

The Government has bungled the negotiations with the Federation Government and the presentation of the proposals to the people and to this Assembly. It is remarkable, Mr Speaker, that in a matter of such grave national moment affecting not only the people of Singapore of today but all future generations, this Government should act as though Singapore was its property and its people the slaves of the Prime Minister, to be disposed of at his pleasure and according to his own concept of what is good for us. Singapore is not a personal fief of the Prime Minister and, Mr Speaker, even if he were a popular Prime Minister and even if the P.A.P. had the respect and confidence of the people, it would be wrong not to associate the Opposition in an issue of such ultimate importance to the whole people. Democracy does not mean that the majority should steamroller the minority and impose its will on it. Though this may not be the language of `the Minister for Culture, nevertheless, Mr Speaker, the essence of democracy is that it must respect and take into consideration minority views and interests. It is not democracy but Fascism when it seeks to steamroller through major issues without reference to or respect for these minority views and interests. But far from being a popular leader, and the Government far from having the confidence of the people, they must be conscious that today they are viewed with more than suspicion and anger, even reaching to contempt, by the vast majority of our people. I had hard words to say of the Member for Cairnhill when lie hung on to power. I cannot understand the present Front Bench being able to support the burden of this massive contempt and yet clinging on.

Mr Speaker, the people are conscious that the Prime Minister and his Party are politically bankrupt. The people know that the Prime Minister and his Party know that they would never survive another election. In this context, Mr Speaker, for the Prime Minister to seek to negotiate off his own bat the future of this island is legitimately viewed with grave suspicion. I ask him to look at the way he has presented these proposals to the people. I say that it is impossible to contrive anything more tortuous - even the genius of the Minister for Culture for the tortuous could not conceive anything more messy than the strip-tease method of revelation, bit by bit, of issues so vital to our future. The letters from the Deputy Prime Minister purported to seek the co-operation of the Opposition, but were blatantly used for propaganda purposes, particularly the second letter wherein it informed the people that we would have equal status, privileges and powers as all other States in the Federation with more portfolios, concealing consciously the vital aspect that not one of us would be a citizen of the Federation. That is not clever, Mr Speaker, I have another word for it and I have used it in public, inviting the Deputy Prime Minister to sue me. He has not. I say it is not clever and it is not even necessary. Maneuvers and tactics of so cheap a character based on the theory that the people are blind chickens are not decent and are not necessary in the context of these proposals. Finally, Sir, the tactics that were indulged in which so messed up these merger proposals when finally they conceded our request for a sitting of this Assembly. You will remember what transpired. You will remember the use of their powers under the Standing Orders to manipulate the time during which the items could be debated and the interventions in the debate. According to their likes, Mr Speaker, that was clever propaganda. But to my mind, if there had been an honest and a simpler approach to a difficult but honest problem, instead of this messy approach, we might well have obtained the sympathy of the waverers instead of, through this approach, having made waverers of those who were believers.

Sir, it seems pathologically impossible for the Prime Minister to understand simplicity or to act with simplicity. I am almost convinced that every ruler on his desk must have the shape of a corkscrew.

I repeat, Mr Speaker, we have reached a point where there is a real danger that the entire concept of Malaysia will be nullified because of the tortuous approach of this Government to a simple issue. But it is so important and so vital to our welfare that I think it would be wrong to give up hope. I think it would be wrong not to try and keep on trying. And I say it is not too late to salvage this concept and the spirit of this motion which seeks an All-Party team and provides the means of salvaging the concept of Malaysia from the rubbish heap of lost ideals. We of the Opposition are aware that the Government are of the view that only their Prime Minister is capable of intelligent political thinking, clever thinking, and that we of the Opposition have nothing to contribute. Nevertheless, I ask them to recognise that it is important that the Opposition, even though the Government think us stupid, should be associated with these negotiations in order that the people should be satisfied that these negotiations are honest and not negotiations intended to rescue a bankrupt crew. If Opposition Members are associated with the negotiations, they can both test the strength of the feelings in the Federation, and I am convinced that many in this House are not really conscious of the strong feelings in the Federation in respect of some of the matters that are raised. Perhaps if they knew of the strength of those feelings, they themselves would temper to some extent their own demands. I am in the curious position of not belonging to either of the two major races. I can see and I do sympathise with the approach of each of them. I can understand their point of view. I can recognise the validity of their fears on each side, even though I may disagree, as I do disagree, with the approach, at times intransigent of both sides. But I say that if the Opposition Members are associated in a team honest in negotiating the merger proposals, we may `be in a position to be of assistance, because, let it be recognised that the White Paper is not beyond amendment. Nobody has suggested that - not even the Prime Minister. It may be that we may be able to be of assistance, when coming back, to explain both the difficulties that are to be met on the other side and the intensity of the earnest efforts that are being made by our side to explain to the electorate and to satisfy them that this is not a shameless effort at personal rescue of a discredited political party and an egomaniac leader but an honest effort at reunification with many disadvantages. I think it is not unfair to ask the Government Benches at least to pay lip service to the possibility that the Opposition have constructive ideas. I ask them to cast their minds back to other constitutional conferences from which they were not shut out, and let them admit that persons now in the Opposition did contribute constructively and perhaps at times in greater measure than their super-duper leader, the Prime Minister. Whatever our disagreements, Mr Speaker, we of the Opposition say to the Government that however strongly we resent individually the cheap insults that stem from the fountain-head of P.A.P. culture, let us recognise that there is sincerity on our part in seeking the welfare of Singapore and its people, and that we can meet in the quiet committee rooms in the interchange of ideas so that we may perhaps better appreciate each other's sincerity. I would like to believe that there is sincerity and not merely empty sounds from the Government Benches. I say that it could be very valuable and it could do no harm to have this All-Party team.

Mr Speaker, you know as well as I do that constitutionally even a majority of one is adequate for the P.A.P. to go it alone. Of course, they have the power to hand over Singapore to the Federation even without a referendum and without consulting the people. They have broken promises before and I myself -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of correction.

Mr David Marshall: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: No.

Mr David Marshall: I have no doubt that if it means their survival they will make promises again. But if they do this, then I say to you that this is immoral, more immoral than anything I know this side of Hitler. With a foundation of this character there could be no hope of a happy Malaysia. As a Member of the Opposition and as a representative of the people - one of the 51 - I demand that the Government should recognise the rights of those who have no faith in the P.A.P., but who nevertheless are honest and decent citizens of this territory, and who are entitled to have their representatives made fully aware of and assist in national negotiations with the Federation so that they should know the truth, so that they would be able to come back and fully advise the electorate, apart from assisting in every way they could in the achievement of a common objective. The basic fallacy of the thesis of the Prime Minister and his Minister for Culture is, as pointed out by the Member for Thomson, to equate merger with the White Paper proposals. Merger has always been understood. Of course, we all have a mandate for merger, which is a complete reunification of our two territories. But there is no question but that they never have or ever had any mandate for this type of absurdity. Mr Speaker, an All-Party team is constitutionally necessary. It is the main avenue to dissolve suspicion and antagonism.

Sir, the Minister for Law has asked whether I do not any longer believe in independence for Singapore. You know. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is at times agonising to seek to get an idea through a marble skull. I do not know the material of which the upper part of the Minister for Law is made, but I have said in this House repeatedly and I should have thought it rather boring to have repeated once more the basic platform of our Party, the very first and the unchanging, that unless -

Mr Byrne: On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr David Marshall: No.

Mr Byrne: Absolute coward!

Mr Speaker: Order. Now the Minister is completely unparliamentary. The word "coward" should never be used of a Member of this Assembly. Will he please withdraw?

Mr Byrne: I withdraw, but I am not afraid -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister must not disregard the authority of the Chair.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I was going to say that the basic platform and the unchanging one of our Party is that we should have merger with the Federation, and if that is not possible, then we should have independence, complete and unqualified independence. I repeat in this House that it is my genuine view that the shortest cut to complete merger is through independence.

Mr Speaker, on a point of explanation to this House, in respect of the procedure of giving way on a request for information, I trust - I may be wrong - that I have at all times extended equal courtesy to that which I have received. But you yourself were the witness yesterday, when I did give way, out of courtesy, to the Minister for Law, of the manner in which that courtesy was repaid. I think you can understand the reasons for my rejecting his request.

5.55 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I do not intend to be frivolous or personal on this debate. I would like to confine myself to one simple point, and that is the call for an All-Party conference made by the Member for Queenstown. In opening the motion, he has quoted letters which I wrote to him and he has concluded that I was never sincere in obtaining his ideas on what merger should be. Let me say this right from the beginning. It is because I really believed that all Members in this Assembly can contribute their own ideas to the problem that I entered into correspondence with leaders of political Parties represented in this Assembly. Assuming that I treat the whole lot on the Opposition side as nincompoops, as people whose opinions are not worthy of consideration, I would not have written to them at all. In all my letters -

Mr David Marshall: That was for the Press.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: In all my letters, I have been very simple and polite. In return I get insults. Perhaps if I may quote the Member for Anson, it is more than a passing insult - hysteria and ravings of what you would expect only from people with hallucinations. I entered into correspondence with leaders of the Opposition Parties on 26th August. It was a very short and simple letter. All that I asked them was this: `Dear Mr Marshall, Dear Dr Lee, Dear Mr Ong, Dear Tun Lim'.

I will quote only just the relevant parts: 'I enclose a copy of the joint statement made on Wednesday, 23rd August, 1961, between the Federation Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Singapore. Before the Working Party begins to delve into the details, I shall be glad if you will be so kind as to advise me whether on principle you agree to these two basic points: (a) That defence, external affairs and security should be with the Federation, and (b) That there be local autonomy for Singapore in education and labour. When I have received all the replies showing agreement on these two basic points, I hope to invite all parties to submit their views on other matters so that the Government will have the advantage of the views of all parties represented in the Assembly in order to assist and guide it in its deliberations.' Sir, this is a very polite and courteous letter. On 1st September, I received a reply from the Member for Queenstown. I will quote only the relevant parts:

`I attach for your benefit a copy of the statement issued to the Press clearly outlining the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on our constitutional future.'

And in the enclosed statement which he had already issued to the Press, he said:

`The way ahead for real reunification for our country and our people is one of two directions: (a) an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent state like Penang or Malacca; (b) as an autonomous unit within a confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible.'

Continuing from his letter:

`You now ask for our views on your proposals. But how is the Government going to accommodate our views when they are fundamentally opposed to the Government's proposals, or are you just trying to give the impression to the public that we are all being consulted on the matter.'

Sir, consultation with the Barisan Sosialis means accepting their demands. Two parties can come to a meeting and either they come with fixed views or they come with an open mind that if they come they have to agree or they come to disagree. Here the Barisan Sosialis have stated in writing that their views are fundamentally opposed to the Government's proposals. Therefore, how can the Singapore Government accommodate their views? In other words, there was no sincerity at all when the Barisan Sosialis said they wanted an All-Party conference. Sir, we are not prepared to be like the Disarmament Conference in Geneva which has been sitting for the last couple of years and has never come to any conclusion. Tons of paper have passed through that Disarmament Conference and no result has been achieved. And the reason is simple. When you have two diametrically opposed views present at the conference table, then it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any firm conclusion.

It is quite clear too, Mr Speaker, that the differences of opinion between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis did not originate on the 1st of September, when the Member for Queenstown sent me his letter together with a statement outlining the aims of his Party. It originated much earlier before the 13 Assemblymen broke away from us. On 3rd June a statement was issued by six trade unionists, one of whom is now the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, who stated quite clearly that they wanted an internal self-governing Singapore without the Security Council, but that they were prepared to leave foreign affairs, defence and the base in the hands of the United Kingdom. Did those six trade unionists ever consult us? Did they consult any of the 13 Barisan Assemblymen who are sitting on the opposite side? Did they consult the people? Did they have a mandate from the people when they issued that statement?

An hon. Member: No.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Now, they come here to this Chamber and move a motion demanding consultation. Consultation to them means accepting their demands. That is the meaning of "consultation" in the Barisan vocabulary.

Sir, let other 12 members (excluding the Member for Thomson who was a party to that statement on 3rd June) ask themselves: were they consulted when those six trade unionists asked for an internal self-governing Singapore?

Sir, it is not possible to understand the minds, the twists and turns of the Barisan Sosialis when on 3rd June they put out a statement asking for internal self-government for Singapore, but that foreign affairs and defence be left in the hands of the United Kingdom; and on the 1st of September, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis sent me a statement outlining a completely different stand. Can a conference between us and the Barisan, or, for that matter, can a conference between us and the five other Opposition Parties come to a common agreement?

Mr David Marshall: Surely.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, it has been very clear from my correspondence with Opposition Party leaders that at no time at all did they ever state clearly or give me a courteous reply to tell me what their points of view were. Instead. I had only a tirade from them, in particular from the Member for Anson. The difficulty of my relationship with the Member for Anson is that in his saner moments I am quite prepared to listen to him, but, unfortunately, his periods of sanity are punctuated with hysteria and I just -

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, which must be obvious to you. I shall as of now take objection to every abusive phrase and I am taking objection now.

Mr Speaker: The Standing Order is that it will be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Assembly. If a Member gets up and says that he is being offended or insulted by any language used, then, of course, it conies within the ambit of that Standing Order. Therefore, the allegation that the Member for Anson's sanity is also mixed with hysteria has been taken as being offensive by the Member for Anson and must be withdrawn. But, I must add that there have been perhaps expressions used by the Member for Anson which might have been equally Offensive and insulting to other Members of this House.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: As I say, Mr Speaker -

Mr Speaker: Will the Leader of the House withdraw?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I withdraw, Sir,I will however add that if I am prepared to take, then I must also be prepared to give. But the Member for Anson is a man who is prepared to give, but not prepared to take.

Some hon. Members: Shame!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Byrne: He has always lacked courage, Sir.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, in respect of the Minister for Law's interruption - a provocative interruption - which, if he would like to repeat it outside, I can deal with. But I cannot deal with it here and I ask you to deal with it, Mr Speaker, alleging lack of physical courage on my part, which none of the Front Bench has ever displayed. Physical courage is completely -

Mr Speaker: Order. Did the Minister for Law repeat the word "coward"? I never heard it.

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Minister for Law repeated the word "coward", then he is out of order.

Mr Byrne: No, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is the word?

Mr Byrne: It was a matter of lack of courage.

Mr Speaker: Lack of courage, I suppose, is not as offensive as coward. I do not think the Minister should be asked to withdraw that expression.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister for Law like to repeat that outside? I can then deal with it.

Mr Speaker: Order. Now I think the Member for Anson is coming very close to a breach of privilege, intimidating a Member of this House. Therefore, I think we had better slide over that incident for the time being.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Byrne: He was a coward.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Byrne: I am not to be intimidated, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Minister for Law must take notice of the indication of the Chair.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Again on the 6th of September, 1960, I wrote to leaders of the political Parties on the Opposition side, and I will quote again relevant passages - very courteous. I raised two points which I sought explicit clarification of the stand of each political Party.

"1. Do you agree that in the merger arrangements, defence, external affairs and security come under the control of the Central Government, a point considered basic by the Federation Government?

2. Singapore should retain autonomy in education and labour, a point considered essential by the Singapore Government."

In none of the replies was there any answer to these two points. All Parties chose to evade these two points.

Mr David Marshall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Would he read the Workers' Party reply because -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, because that is an allegation which is not substantiated. He has got the reply of the Workers' Party. Would he read it?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is not a point of order. I am just quoting a letter which I wrote to him. That is not a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the point is that the Member for Anson seized on the phrase "that none of the Opposition Parties made a reply to the two points raised", and the Member for Anson considers that the Workers' Party did, in fact, make a reply. That is the point.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: What I am reading is a letter which I wrote to the leader of the Workers' Party - a verbatim quotation.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister has forgotten that he went on. He went on and said, "None of the Opposition Parties gave a straightforward reply." That is the phrase.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I misunderstood, Sir, I think the leader of the Workers' Party should listen more carefully. I did not say that the leader of the Workers' Party never replied. I said in none of the replies was there any answer to these two points. The respective stands of the four political Parties in the Assembly are as follows:

(a) The Barisan Sosialis stands for complete merger as a twelfth State on the basis of Penang and Malacca. Its second preference is for a confederation between Singapore and the Federation and the three Borneo territories in which defence and external affairs, excluding security, go to the Central Government. Security is to remain a subject for local autonomy.

(b) The Alliance of S.P.A.-U.M.N.O.-M.C.A.-M.I.C. gives no answer but raises a query as to whether the arrangements amount to a merger or a confederation.

(c) The United People's Party stands for complete merger as a State in the Federation.

(d) The Worker's Party wholeheartedly believes in merger with the Federation and considers confederation a very valuable concept.

Is that correct?

Mr David Marshall: That is what we replied.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes. That was your stand. That was your reply. Is it correct?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister is getting perhaps a little heated. He is addressing the Chair and not the Member for Anson.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I am sorry, Sir,I am so used to lecturing [Laughter] that I forgot -

Mr Rajah: Where? Classroom?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: - where I am. [Interruption] And I concluded -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think if the Member for Anson does not interject, we could get on much quicker with this debate.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: And I concluded again very politely: `I shall be obliged if you will give me direct answers to the two points I have raised in my last letter: whether you agree that (1) Defence, external affairs and security come under the control of the Central Government. (2) Education and labour come under Singapore local autonomy? Further, can you clarify - (a) Does your Party stand for complete merger? (b) If so, will you state categorically that your Party understands that this means education and labour are under the control of the Central Government? (c) If you do not stand for complete merger, do you agree that there should be merger, but with local autonomy in Singapore in education and labour? Yours sincerely,'

On 6th October, instead of receiving an answer to my very polite letter, I received a joint reply signed by Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Ong Eng Guan and Mr David Marshall in which they said:

`We call on the Government to convene forthwith a meeting of the Legislative Assembly to consider and debate the basic principles and to appoint an All-Party Conference.'

Sir, the request -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. A misquotation is a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir,It is not true that he did not receive a reply and it is not true that that was the reply. He has a reply - a telegram from me - in his files.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Oh yes, I must apologise to the Member for Anson.

An hon. Member: A very long telegram.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I must say this. If I have made a mistake, I am generous enough to acknowledge it and rectify it.

Mr David Marshall: Thank you.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: But I am not in this sense like the Member for Anson. Does he want me to read the telegram which he sent to me? I will read it for him.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Deputy Prime Minister could give us the salient points. Otherwise -

Mr David Marshall: I am quite satisfied, Sir.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I will give you the salient points. I wrote a very polite and courteous letter to all Members of the Assembly to which I received a telegram -

Mr Rajaratnam: From where?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: - from Sydney, New South Wales.

Mr David Marshall: It cost $300.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: How much - $300? This is the sort of reply I got from the Member for Anson.

Mr Speaker: Keep it salient.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: All right, I will keep it salient:

`I am deeply stirred by your statements that the arrangements between Singapore and the Federation are those of merger as a State in the Federation and that the only difference between Singapore and any one of the other States in the Federation is that there will be more powers reserved to the Singapore State Government. If this is true my Party and I despite the past will support you with all our heart and energy in sincerity and humanity. If this is lying party political propaganda we will fight you and damn you even from prison.'.

As I told the Assembly at the last sitting, when he sent me this telegram, he was not in prison but on a honeymoon [Interruption]. It reads on:

`Reply your specific questions my Party stands for complete merger with the Federation.'

Then he ended up with:

`Singapore should not seek special privileges which would set us apart from our fellow citizens...'.

As I told the House in November, it is easier to follow Alice in Wonderland than the March Hare, but I must now add the Mad Hatter too.

Well, Sir, this call for a debate in the Assembly on the basic principles of merger was heeded. The Assembly was reconvened. A debate on the White Paper was held in November and it lasted a considerable amount of time. It took us 12 days to arrive at some conclusion. Where then is the complaint that the Opposition political Parties have not been consulted or that they have not been given a chance to air their views?

An hon. Member: From July to November.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Beginning from 26th August, when I first wrote to them, up to November, when we had the debate on merger, there was ample opportunity given to them to express their views.

As the Prime Minister has said just now, it is important that if an All-Party Conference is to be convened, then it is important too that some concensus of opinion should be arrived at. But as we have seen from the correspondence and the debate itself, no possibility exists that five political Parties in this Assembly can come to one common agreement. In fact, the debate in the Assembly last November highlighted considerable differences of opinion among us. The Members of the Opposition referred to the ex-Chief Minister - the Member for Cairnhill - who did call for an All-Party meeting before he proceeded to the second constitutional talks. That is quite correct. But when we were in the Opposition at that time, we never came out publicly with our own stand of what that constitutional conference should arrive at. We had the decency to answer his call and to meet him privately in his office. I was a Member of that All-Party team and I issued no statements on what the P.A.P. would ask for at that constitutional conference because that would have jeopardised the All-Party Conference. We adopted the same stand at the first All-Party Conference led by the ex-Chief Minister, the Member for Anson. Perhaps he acted in good heart, but what were the results of that All-Party Conference which was led by the Member for Anson? The team went to London in 1956. They fought and squabbled with each other in London and it ended up with the isolation of the ex-Chief Minister, the Member for Anson. Finally, the talks collapsed because he wanted his way and the other political Party leaders wanted their own way. The result was that the first constitutional conference led by the Member for Anson was a miserable failure. It is vivid in my memory from the reading of the papers and from the accounts that that first constitutional conference, led by the Member for Anson, ended up with the ex-Chief Minister going to an opera together with -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not suppose the Deputy Prime Minister will allege that that is public conduct. That, to my mind, is personal conduct

• going to an opera.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: If I say he wore a carnation, would that be his private conduct or his public conduct?

Mr Speaker: The Deputy Prune Minister must learn to behave himself. He is now endeavouring to slip in something which he knows to be out of order by way of a question which is completely wrong.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I am just speaking about what was public knowledge. The Member for Cairnhill will bear me out. Will the Member for Cairnhill bear me out?

Mr Speaker: Order. Please address the Chair.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Very well, Sir, the thesis which I put forward is simple, and that is an All-Party Conference can only be useful if certain conditions are first obtained. One of the first conditions is that no Party should adopt an inflexible attitude before the conference. The second condition is that when you arrive at the conference, you arrive with sincerity that you will come to an agreement, and not to come to disagree. As the Member for Queenstown has asked, "How can the Government accommodate our views when you well know what the stand of the Barisan Sosialis is?" Will such an All-Party Conference be useful?

Finally, I want to reply to the Member for Anson. He made a reference to the postponement of the Second Reading of the Referendum Bill to March. He said that we were avoiding a referendum. I say that he is telling here a bare falsehood. We never said that we were avoiding a referendum and that is why when the Member for Anson -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order. In the face of this Assembly, he is himself indulging in a falsehood. What I said was that there was a possibility that the P.A.P. would dishonour a promise in holding a referendum. If you will remember, Mr Speaker, it is on the record.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a matter of elucidation.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: And that is what I say, that he is telling a falsehood. It is a falsehood. We said that the Second Reading of the Referendum Bill would come after March and that there would be a referendum. Is he a crystal-gazer or is he a prophet? Sir, I have heard of many prophets in the Bible, but I know that David is no prophet.

Sir, I would like to say that the motion moved by the Member for Queenstown asking for an All-Party Conference only expresses their insincerity simply because they never wanted any agreement to be arrived at even if an All-Party Conference were called.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, in reply.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, you will notice from what I said that I moved this motion on a factual approach. I never went into frivolities and I never smeared or ridiculed. The whole speech was made from the point of view of an All-Party matter. If I had wanted to bring in the letters that the Deputy Prime Minister sent to me and the letters that we sent back to him, I would have taken a much longer time. But since he has mentioned some of those letters, Sir, I think it is only fair that I also must mention them. In fact, of all the speeches from the Government Benches, the only person who argued against the points which I raised was the Deputy Prime Minister. He was trying to say that he was sincere and that there was no cause for asking for an All-Party Conference. He mentioned quite a number of letters, Sir,I will answer him first. If you will remember even in the speech I made, I had already mentioned that the Deputy Prime Minister had sent letters to leaders of the Opposition Parties only after the principle had already been agreed to between the two Prime Ministers. Now if there is any real intention to consult anybody, you do not send letters to ask for details. First of all, you ask for principles to be agreed to before you ever come to the details. In this particular case the two Prime Ministers had already agreed to the two major principles when they issued their first joint statement. The first joint statement came out on 23rd August. The Deputy Prime Minister, then Acting Prime Minister, sent us a letter on the 26th, three days later. As I have said, it was an afterthought, just to guard themselves against anything that we might say against them, and to give the idea that they did really consult the people. Where is the sincerity of consultation'? They never asked us for our views. So how could we give them our views? If the Deputy Prime Minister says that he is going to take note of all the views published in the newspapers, then I say he should not even be sitting in this Assembly here today. Because if he had taken cognisance of the views expressed outside this Assembly and unofficially published in the newspapers, he would not have the face to come and tell us that he is still sincere or that the P.A.P. today has the support of the people.

As in all the P.A.P. attacks so far, the Deputy Prime Minister when he talked about what we wrote to him as regards the constitutional future, again tried to link it up with what we said about Malacca and Penang. Sir, let me clarify this here in this House. We could well have said, "like Johore or Trengganu, or any other State". The only reference which we made to Penang and Malacca was that Penang and Malacca were colonies before. That was about all, on general principles. But we made sure there was no misunderstanding of our stand when we also said in the succeeding paragraphs that we wanted automatic Federal citizenship. That was in the same statement and appeared just one or two paragraphs below the main heading. But the P.A.P. has been mischievously singling out just one portion of our statement and now tries to attack us on that.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): What about the radio forum? You did not understand that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Deputy Prime Minister also said that we did not reply to him. I did not raise any objection when he said all this, because I can easily prove that when I in fact wrote to him, he never even bothered to reply. When the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to me on 6th September, we wrote back to him on the 11th and asked him a number of questions. To this day, Sir, that letter has not been replied to. We do not want to press him any further because we know he does not want to reply to those questions, as they are all embarrassing questions. He would rather the people did not know the P.A.P. attitude in regard to those questions.

As I have said, Sir, in all the speeches of the Government Benches there was no actual argument against what I have said as regards the desirability of an All-Party conference. Even the Minister for Culture adopted the attitude that they would consult the people only in their own way. He also talked of terms which "we think are bad". All these words smack too much of the ego, smack too much of arrogant people who think they can decide the future for all the people of Singapore. I have already made reference to this in my speech, namely that the P.A.P.'s great fault is that they think they are the only people who know what is best for Singapore.

Some of the other arguments have already been answered by my colleague, the Member for Thomson. But great play has been made of the pledge we gave to the P.A.P. That was the same pledge given by the Member for Hong Lim, and we know what happened. We do not have to answer to the P.A.P. That pledge was given to the people and if at any time the Prime Minister, or, for that matter, the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister, wish to go back to the country and prove to the people that they have their trust and confidence - Tanjong Pagar, Kreta Ayer, or Rochore - we will go, and I will go.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We would like to tell the Ministers sitting opposite that they made a pledge to the people which is much more important. That pledge is in their Five-Year Plan. And yet they talk so much about election promises! They say merger is one of their election pledges. But as has already been said, what type of merger'? When we joined the P.A.P. and when we supported merger, we never for one moment thought that we would get a type of merger that would give Singapore citizens no Federal citizenship. We never expected that if there should be merger there would be no proportionate representation. This is not a merger of equality. This is not the type of merger that gives justice to all the people. During the last general elections, I remember the Member for Cairnhill used to say that merger was only possible if the S.P.A. was the government and -

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Member for Queenstown will agree with me that he is straying a bit far away from the motion.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am only answering the Prime Minister's point, Sir. At that time the P.A.P.'s answer was that if there was merger, then merger must come about only when the peoples of both territories agreed to merger. But today, you will find a lot of people very unhappy about merger.

I do not want to make much reference to the referendum but in passing, at this stage, I can say that although the Deputy Prime Minister has just given an assurance that there will be a referendum - I take it that I have heard him correctly -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - that although the intention was to have a quick referendum, the P.A.P. now realises that if they had this referendum at this particular stage, they would lose it, and therefore they want to postpone it. And what better way of postponing the referendum than by postponing the National Referendum Bill itself? That would give them time to wrangle some of the arguments and see if they could in some way or other chip in something new to try and help their cause. As I have said, Sir, they made great play of pledges. They said merger was one of their pledges. But let us ask them: what about the other pledges? Do they ever think of them? Do they realise why we left them? It is because they have not really kept their election promises. It is because they have -

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us confine ourselves to one pledge. If I am going to allow the Member for Queenstown to make these allegations, then that is not strictly in reply to what has been said. Only one pledge has been mentioned by a Member on the Government side, that is, the pledge signed by the Member for Queenstown.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think most of of the people in Singapore know the many pledges that the P.A.P. have not kept, Sir, I will not refer to them.

But as regards this merger, Sir, and this Malaysia which they have tried so hard to boost, have they got a mandate from the people of Malaysia? Have they ever talked to the people about Malaysia? They now say that they must keep their promise about merger. Well, why do they not keep their promise about Malaysia as well? If they did not consult the people about Malaysia before, why do they not consult the people now before undertaking any drastic step that will lead the people of Singapore, the Federation and the Borneo territories into paths which may lead to a lot of unhappiness?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: For the Communists.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There will not be a happy Malaysia. There will be a lot of unhappiness. If we want to stick to the Prime Minister's words, the greatest amount of happiness - I think he said that - for the greatest number of people, then I would ask him and his colleagues to consider what they have done. Go back - according to some Chinese saying - and think about it. Put up their pillows and think about it. And they will realise that what they have done will not be to the best interests of the people.

The Prime Minister made mention of people who play rugger as rash rushing forwards. But one thing is certain: whether a rugger player plays forward or wing three-quarter, he always knows how to get the man down. And we get the man down and take the ball across the line. That should tell the Deputy Prime Minister where he stands today. He tries to smile. That is his only consolation, nothing else, because if he should go back to his Rochore -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes. Sir, he is intimidating. He is talking about getting people down. I assure you none of us here is a rugger ball!

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Chair always looks to the Leader of the House for some lead to assist him in keeping order. And a frivolous objection like that will not help.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was saying about the Deputy Prime Minister going back to Rochore. Even if I should not be there to get him down, somebody else will.

The Prime Minister, Sir, since he could not find a good reply, adopted the familiar tactic of smears.

An hon. Member: Charge him in court.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: First of all, he said that we wanted to be Prime Ministers and Ministers, alleging that we are all opportunists [Interruption] -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already remarked time and, again that this running commentary from the Ministerial Benches is completely disorderly. If that is the type of debate that the Ministerial Benches require, I suggest they use their majority to amend the Standing Orders so that there can be a running commentary from both sides.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Since he has found that smearing us could not get us down, he tried the pro-Communist and the Communist front line, and since he could not get us down that way, he tried the familiar tactic of praising one Member and running down another in our Party, hoping thereby to cause misunderstanding amongst us. These are familiar tactics. We know all of them. We can see through them right away. They are transparent. I do not have to have X-ray eyes to see how many bones they have in their body. Everytime the Prime Minister speaks about the Communist menace and things like that, he refers to his Fourth Anniversary Souvenir. He goes to great lengths to read passages of it for everybody.

He has spoken very much about reunification of the two territories. Although I have lightly touched on it before, I would like now to enlarge on it a bit here. As to why we really broke away from them, Mr Speaker, Sir, we had already explained that in our rallies and in our speeches on the 20th of July. They wanted us to follow them blindly, but that is not the way to go about things. They should expect a certain amount of intelligence at least from us. We all understand things in a certain way. The Prime Minister says that we had read those passages and understood those passages. We understand those passages to mean that if there should be reunification of the two territories, it must be on a basis of genuine equality, justice and democracy. There must be no domination of one section of the people over another section. There are a lot of unfounded fears in the Federation, and the P.A.P. leaders themselves realise that those fears are unfounded. But, unfortunately, today they have gone about enlarging on those fears and trading on them. We hope they will not play the communal line because every time they talk of people who are anti-merger, they always link it up with the word "anti-nationalists". That is a very dangerous line, Sir, and it can cause a lot of friction between the various races in this country. It is a funny thing that when the Tunku said that he was anti-merger, the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister of Singapore never dared to say that the Tunku was anti-national. But now they have seen fit to smear us with such a word as "anti-nationalist". I do not think it is fair, and I would urge the P.A.P. leaders to desist from this line. It is not fair to us, it is not fair to themselves, and it is not fair to all the people of Singapore as well as of the Federation. They ask us to support their merger proposals. It is impossible for us to support merger proposals which do not give us those basic rights, and especially, Sir, when we see new amendments to the Federal Constitution now before the Federal Parliament.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Queenstown is straying far away from the motion.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will not touch on those things, Sir. Let me tell the Prime Minister this. He talks about the garden path and all that. All the time he has been leading people up the garden path. At this stage, I might be permitted to refer to the few words I had with him before we broke away from the P.A.P. He asked me, if he had merger, would that mean a fulfilling of the promise made to the people? I said to him, "Merger, yes. But what type of merger?" Then he said, "You know socialism is not possible in Singapore." I said, "Yes, how is it you never had any contact with socialist Parties in the Federation?" And he said that if he did that, he would be stepping on the toes of the Tunku. When I reminded him - at that time there was the Anson by-election - that the Tunku was already joining hands with the S.P.A. against him, he could not reply. And I said, "You are leading the people up the garden path. You have given us to understand that you are going to fight for the rights of equality and justice for the people. But if you want to go on a merger that is going to bring inequality and injustice, then the people will disown you." That was what I said to the Prime Minister about "leading people up the garden path." I do not wish to go further into the other anecdotes. I wish to confine myself now to the actual All-Party conference itself.

As I have said already, Sir, merger is a national issue. It is not a one-Party issue. If the P.A.P. want the people to believe that they are democratic, then they must practise democracy so that everyone can see it in practice. Preaching democracy and not practising it will give democracy a bad name and is in reality a dictatorship. Our walk-out, which was referred to by the Minister for Culture -

Mr Rajaratnam: Betrayal.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - is a clear indication of the dictatorship that the P.A.P. is trying to practise even inside this Assembly Hall. Democracy is only democracy when it is practised by people who hold power. If, in holding power, they go by Fascist methods, then all this talk of democracy is very hollow, and nobody can take them very seriously. They have often talked about parliamentary democracy being on trial here. They hope that it will not fail. But it will fail if the P.A.P. persists in its attitude of going about things that are national affairs on a one-Party basis.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the final decision of the future of Singapore must rest with the people. Well, let them consult the people. One of the ways of consulting the people is to have an All-Party conference where all the views can be put forward. We do not ask for a general election just because we want to come to power. It has already been explained that we want to make sure that if it is going to be a government that will look after the national question, then it must be a government that will not only practise democracy but can also really say that it represents the people. Everybody knows that the P.A.P. is an unpopular Government and completely discredited and, of course, that is the reason why it dare not go for an election. In the past the Prime Minister always used to challenge Members of the Opposition and even Members of the Government. I remember there was a challenge issued by the Prime Minister to the Member for Anson on a simple question. Yet now on a major issue, they dare not even mention it. We are not against a referendum.

Mr Rajaratnam: You are.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We are ready for the referendum. But we would ask the P.A.P. not to play politics where the future of the people is concerned. It must always place national interests above party politics and personal interests. Only then will democracy have meaning. If I may be allowed to quote again a small passage of the speech which I read cut in the beginning. Just a few lines. I said this:

`This call for an All-Party conference will serve its purpose if it will help to show the P.A.P. its past mistakes. If the P.A.P. should admit these mistakes and take appropriate steps to rectify them, then the time of the House will not have been wasted in debating this motion.'

7.00 p.m.

Question put.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, can I ask a point of order now?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please be seated.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, can the vote be put in three parts, because we support the first two parts and abstain from the third part?

Mr Speaker: It seems to me that all parts are connected, because the last part only demands that the Government seek without delay a new mandate from the people, failing agreement on this All-Party conference, unless any other Member wishes to take the vote in parts.

Some hon. Members indicated dissent.

Question again put.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 25; Abstentions, 7; Absent, 3; Paired, 2. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Chan Sun Wing. Buang bin Omar Fung Yin Ching, Junid. Miss. Byrne, K. M. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Chee Seng. Leong Keng Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lin You Eng. Goh Chew Chua. Low Por Tuck. Goh Keng Swee. Marshall, David. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Chang Sam. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Abstentions. Ramaswamy, S. Abdul Hamid bin Sahorah binte Haji Jumat Ahmat, Madam. Ahmad Jabri bin Tan Kia Gan. Mohammad Akib Toh Chin Chye. Lim Yew Hock. Wee Toon Boon. Lingam, S. V. Yaacob bin Mohamed Ng Teng Kian. Yong Nyuk Lin Ong Eng Guan. Paired. Chan Choy Siong. Absent. Madam. Koh, C. H. Mohamed Ali bin Rajah, A. P. Alwi. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs.

Motion accordingly negatived.