FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA

2.40 p.m.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate.

Mr Speaker: The Original Question, as amended, was:

"That, in pursuance of the national objective of a united Malayan nation, enlarged and strengthened by the addition of our brothers in the Borneo territories, this House declares its support in principle for the plan proposed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, and agreed to in principle in the Federation Parliament on 18th October, 1961, for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, comprising the eleven States of the present Federation, the States of Singapore and Brunei, and the territories of Sarawak and North Borneo.".

Since which amendments have been proposed,

In line 4, to leave out "plan" and insert "motion":

In line 6, to leave out "in principle".

The Question is, "That the word `plan' proposed to be left out, be left out." As has been indicated, the debate may proceed not only on the Original Question, as amended, but also on those two amendments which have been proposed.

2.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I spoke on this motion in this House yesterday. Before concluding, I said that the Barisan Sosialis had one failing, i.e., they are unable to distinguish clearly who are the colonialists and who are the nationalists. The Barisan Sosialis think that the nationalists are also colonialists. They are confused between the two. That is why their position is isolated today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have another failing, i.e., they are shortsighted. They try all ways and means to attack the nationalists - even harder than the attack they level at the colonialists. This is a very great shortcoming of theirs. They hope that the nationalists will come to a united front with them. But they stab the nationalists behind their backs. For example, the Member for Queenstown said yesterday that the Federation of Malaya is attracted to the Malaysia plan because perhaps of the oil resources in Brunei, where the revenue is high. In fact, the revenue there exceeds expenditure so much that there is a great surplus of money which will be helpful to the Federation of Malaya. According to him, this is perhaps the only true appeal that the Malaysia concept has for the Federation of Malaya. This talk is very bad because he is trying to treat the Tunku as an exploiter. He tried to say that when two countries wish to merge, it is a case of exploitation of one by the other. This kind of talk will only further separate the people of the two territories. It will not bring peace to the people: instead it will bring disaster. We in the P.A.P. have a different concept of Malaysia than that of the Barisan Sosialis. We take into consideration the interest of the broad masses of the people. But the attitude' of the Barisan Sosialis towards Malaysia is in the interest of the colonialists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today the Barisan Sosialis are in such a position that they are surrounded by enemies. They hope to be able to defeat the P.A.P. in order to gain power so that they can collaborate with the British colonialists.

The Member for Queenstown raised three points yesterday in his speech with regard to the British colonialists. This was reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh. He said the question confronting us is not merely to get rid of the British. I think the people will understand their hidden intention behind this statement. He continued to say - as is reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh - that the British hoped that the people of the Borneo territories would be divided and fight among themselves, with the result that the colonial influence would be forgotten for the time being by them. At the beginning the Barisan Sosialis said that the question of the British colonialists no longer exists. The second point they raised was that it is the hope of the British to divide the people of the Borneo territories. This kind of talk is very inconsistent. The P.A.P. want to merge all these territories into a very strong Malaysian nation, but the Barisan Sosialis say that it is the intention of the British to divide the people in these territories. If this is so, how can they say that the P.A.P. are trying to sell out the interest of the people in this region? As far as we can see, the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are suffering from shortsightedness. They seem to be standing on Clifford Pier from where they can see monkeys coming across the sea from Indonesia. They then run quickly to Geylang Serai to say that the enemies are landing and that the Dutch military forces are slaughtering the Indonesian people. They are trying to describe the present situation in Indonesia as a very serious situation in order to agitate innocent womenfolk to go to the battlefield in Indonesia. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are just keeping quiet. Instead of doing something, they are shouting slogans on the stage. Such an attitude is incompatible with the interest of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can see today that the Barisan Sosialis are suffering from a very great mistake. They have many theories and many slogans, but these are at variance with the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx. We know that in the view of Marx, resort must be made to practical moves. The understanding of the human being is very important. The experiences of a human being must depend on his production in material wealth in order that he can understand the natural resources. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis only know how to shout slogans on the stage. They know how to talk about theories.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I understood that we were discussing Malaysia and not the failings of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker: If the Parliamentary Secretary is replying to certain arguments put forward by the Member for Queenstown, which in themselves went a bit far away from the motion, then I think he is entitled to answer those points, but not in too great detail, of course.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am now concentrating on the points raised by the Member for Queenstown which I think are unreasonable.

Just now I was saying that the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have a lot of theories without being able to understand the actual requirements of the people. They went to Geylang Serai in order to get the support of the Malays there. They appear to be friends of the Malays. They wish to appear to the Malays that they are very courageous in their struggle against colonialism. They try to create a false impression in the minds of the Malays. On the one hand, they try to get the support of the Prime Minister of the Federation, but, on the other hand, they attack him in many ways. They treat the Malays in the Federation in the same way that the Manchurians tried to conquer China. This will widen the gulf between the people of Singapore and the Federation with no benefit to them. For example, in the speeches of the Member for Queenstown, stress is often laid on the fact that Singapore and the other territories should merge with Indonesia. But their real intention is not a reunification of these territories with Indonesia because they understand that the present ruler of Indonesia is President Soekarno. They think that when Indonesia falls into the hands of the Reds with the fall of President Soekarno, it would then be the proper time to include these territories in the Indonesian Plan.

In conclusion, I would like to quote what the Member for Queenstown said. This appears on the fifth page of the Sin Chew Jit Poh: of yesterday:

`As socialists, we are in support of more and more people in various countries uniting together. We want to have more countries united together in the interest of the people building a socialist country with a socialist economic development.'

We in the P.A.P. are trying to bring about a reunification of these territories in the form of Malaysia in order to create a greater nation with a stronger economic unit.

2.55 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, Sir, what is before us today is not the problem of whether this or that Party is going to survive and run the government of Singapore but the future of 10 million people whose destiny is at stake and whose fate is in the balance.

When the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya first mooted the idea, there were rumblings from various quarters particularly from the Communist front organisations, that the conception of Malaysia was the brainchild of British colonialism and British vested interests. These Communist front organisations went even so far as to say that the Tunku had connived with the British in presenting Malaysia.

Since then, Sir, events have proved to the contrary. The Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee in their deliberations in Jesselton, Kuching and Kuala Lumpur, have in no uncertain terms bared the falsehoods and lies of the Communists.

British colonialism is on its last legs in this part of the world. It is on the way out. The British know it, the Communists know it, and we know it. At the same time, we all know that with the departure of the British colonial power, there will be left a vacuum in this region. The Communists and their allies, with their tongue in their cheek, say that it will be filled by another form of colonialism - the colonialism of the Federation of Malaya.

Sir, it is hardly necessary for me to say that neither the Tunku nor his erstwhile colleagues have any territorial ambitions. However, we who belong to the democratic forces have no doubts in our minds that unless something is done - and done quickly - to fill this vacuum, the Communists will get there first.

The fight for Malaysia is a fight against time. It is a fight for the survival of democracy against the evil forces of Communist dictatorship. The Communists are no fools. They are aware of it. That is why they are using every means in their power, by infiltration, intimidation and persuasion, to wreck the Malaysia Plan. They are fighting for time too. They are not ready to take over now but they hope to do so as soon as they have marshalled their Communist front organisations and dupes in these territories.

Sir, I do not say that the Communists are the only forces which are against Malaysia, but I dc say this, that they are the biggest force with which the people of Malaysia will have to contend. Even in the Borneo territories, the leaders there have a fair idea of what will happen to them should the Communists succeed. In fact, the few who are apprehensive about Malaysia are those who fear that with the coming of Malaysia the Communist front in Singapore will infiltrate into their territories and make life a misery for them.

This is one of the fears expressed and it is a very genuine one. For this very reason, Sir, the Temanggong Juga of Iban and other leaders from Sabah and Sarawak insisted that they would very much like to control migration in the respective territories after Malaysia, The people of Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak are fully aware of the dangers of Communism and Communist infiltration. They know that for them to survive there is no other alternative but to join hands with their kith and kin in Malaya and Singapore in a greater federation and together unfold a new era of prosperity and happiness for all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like now to touch on some of the points raised by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis in his speech yesterday. Merger and Malaysia mean an enslavement of the people and the spread of injustice and inequality, so said the leader of the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, [do not know how the Member has arrived, at this conclusion. If he had taken the Federation of Malaya today as a guide for the things to come in the future Malaysia, then he is completely wrong. And it is a mischievous and a misleading statement to make. Malaya has been independent for nearly 4½ years. It has proved to the world that amongst the new nations in post World War II it .is a shining example of a country where justice, equality, and freedom of the individual prevail. Malaya has not reached the stage and will not reach the stage of some countries where political opponents are just lugged into prison to satisfy the whims of the ruling Party.

Talking about enslavement, injustice and inequality, the Member for Thomson, who was my fellow traveller to the Kuching conference, will certainly bear me out when I say that in the Borneo States the ra'ayat, particularly the indigenous people, have not had a square deal from the colonial regime. Injustice, inequality, and enslavement are phases which could be applied to the state of affairs in some of the Borneo territories. Colonial power which came to Sarawak in 1941, in Brunei in 1888, and in Sabah in 1878, had done very little to uplift the standard of living of the indigenous people. When the British first went there, the Dayaks, the Ibans, the Malays, the Muruts, the Bajaus, the Melanaus, the Dusuns, were all living in attap huts. Today, Sir, after decades of colonial administration applied to the people, they are no better. So, when the leader of the Barisan Sosialis talks of injustice, inequality, and enslavement in the future Malaysia, he should, first of all, take a peep into the conditions that prevail in the Borneo States. I know he has been there, Sir, but perhaps he has not used his eyes wisely.

Again, Malaysia, says the Barisan leader, would mean the transfer of power from the British to the Federation with the British the back-seat drivers. Sir, I do not see the logic of this argument. We have repeatedly said in this House - and so has the Tunku elsewhere - that Malaysia, like the present Federation of Malaya, will be a free and an independent country. There will be no back-seat drivers. All the drivers in the future Malaysia will come from the people of Malaysia, and they will occupy front seats, except perhaps the Communists who in an open conflict with the nationalist forces would prefer to remain back-seat drivers and let the stooges do the fighting for them.

Sir, the point has also been raised, within the context of this argument, of the story of nuclear weapons in Singapore and the defence treaty with Britain, and how these arrangements would automatically place the population in the front line in any nuclear war. I myself do not know whether there are nuclear weapons stored in Singapore. But let me tell the Barisan leader and his friends that in the event of a nuclear war erupting in this region, the front line would not be confined to the population of Singapore alone, but the whole world would be involved.

Sir, mud-slinging and smearing are all effective weapons for those who have no argument left. And so the Barisan Sosialis leaders, having come to the end of their resources, now indulge in this dirty pastime. The Tunku says that their leader, that is, the Member for Queenstown, has a pathological fear of the Chinese in Singapore, and hence he has categorically stated that he would not have Singapore without the Borneo States. The reason, according to the Barisan, is the desire of the Tunku to have a preponderance of the indigenous people over the Chinese. In fact, Sir, this statement is an accusation that the Tunku is anti-Chinese. Now, nothing can be further from the truth. My friend and colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, has already dealt with this point and I will not elaborate on it. But let me say this, and let me explain, if an explanation is needed, why the Tunku made that statement. It is not because he fears the preponderance of the Chinese. Even with the Borneo territories thrown in, the proportion of racial representation in Malaysia would be 42 per cent indigenous, which would include the Malays, 38 per cent Chinese, 10 per cent Indians and Pakistanis, and 10 per cent others. Sir, knowing the speed of propagation of our Chinese brothers and sisters, I think it would not be long before they catch up with the Malays and even beat them. If we are to fight Communism in Malaysia, we cannot fight them in pockets. The problem must be tackled as a whole. Just as Malaysia without the Borneo territories cannot work; so also Malaysia without Singapore cannot be effective.

So, Sir, let me once again say to the Barisan boys: our Tunku is not anti-Chinese, nor is he communal in his attitude towards the basic problems facing Malaysia. But it is obvious to all that the very fact that the Barisan has chosen to propound this line of argument only goes to prove the strength of Chinese chauvinism that permeates and guides the thoughts and minds of the Barisan leaders.

The Member for Queenstown, Sir, has also laboured at great length on the apprehensions of the people of Borneo towards Malaysia. He said the Sarawak United People's Party and the Party Ra'ayat of Brunei wanted self-determination first before having anything to do with Malaysia. Perhaps the Barisan boys can tell me who are the guiding lights of the S.U.P.P. and who are their supporters, and from what group do they come. Are the Party Ra'ayat and the S.U.P.P. the only political Parties in the Borneo States? Does the Member for Queenstown know or has he heard of the Brunei United Party, the Brunei National Organisation -

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Kosong!

Dato Abdul Hamid: You say kosong. You will know some day, chum!

Mr Speaker: Order. I suppose the Member does know that he is addressing the Chair. I do not think the Chair minds being called a chum, but I think he should try and remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Dato Abdul Hamid: The Member for Thomson is quite right in saying kosong, because the Parties which I have mentioned just now are kosong of Communists; they have no Communists in them.

Coming back to the Parties concerned, if I might repeat again. There is the Brunei United Party, the Brunei National Organisation, the Brunei United National Organisation, the Sarawak National Organisation, the Pemuda of Sarawak, the Malay Union of Sarawak, the Party Negara of Sarawak, the Kadazan Party of Sabah, and finally the United Sabah National Organisation, also from Sahah. Of course, Sir, the Barisan boys can only -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the expression "Barisan boys" is meant to apply to Members, possibly the best phrase would be "Barisan Members".

Dato Abdul Hamid: I meant the boys of the Barisan outside the Assembly as well, Sir, but I seem to be forgetting that there is also a girl behind it. The Barisan Members can only see what their masters want them to see.

Sir, I have attended many of the meetings of these organisations. I have met some of their leaders who are not only respectable citizens in their own right but also patriots who love freedom and independence. But I can say this explicitly and without contradiction, that they have not only as a group but in some cases individually a bigger following than the Sarawak United People's Party. So let me advise the Barisan Members, when they talk of Malaysia in the context of the Borneo territories - let them not forget that the Sarawak United People's Party is not the only political Party in Sarawak.

Sir, during the debate on West Irian, the Member for Thomson had occasion to mention the conception of Greater Malaysia which would include Indonesia, the Philippines, the Borneo States, Singapore and Malaya. Yesterday the Member for Queenstown again extolled the same conception. Sir, I do not know what game the Barisan are playing. Are they really serious about this? Are they trying to delude the people into believing that they support this idea? Perhaps. Sir, I should mention here that the Greater Malaysia plan was first mooted in the early 1930s. The idea caught on until it came out in one of the platforms of the Malay National Party, or M.N.P. after World War II.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: Point of clarification. Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dato Abdul Hamid resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged. I am very interested in that statement, Sir. Could the Member indicate who first initiated that concept? And where can I find documentation for it?

Dato Abdul Hamid: I am coming to that, Sir, but I do not think I would like to mention the name of the gentleman who first mooted the idea. It came from the Philippines. Anyway, politically and economically it was an idea acceptable to the Malay masses. But do the Barisan really know the primary objective of the conception of this so-called Greater Malaysia? I will tell you, Sir,It was an anti-Chinese move. It was a move which emanated from certain national leaders in South-East Asia who feared the insurgence of Chinese in the Malaysian world. Sir, had they known about this so-called Greater Malaysia, I am sure the idea would not be as attractive to them now as it was before. And yet. Mr Speaker, they have the cheek to say that the Tunku is anti-Chinese when he refused to consider the concept of this Greater Malaysia.

Sir, when winding up his speech, the Barisan leader said that Malaysia is a British-sponsored project. I will not attempt to deny this allegation. But to end up my speech, I will say this to the Barisan Members and to all those who are anti-Malaysia. The question I would like to put to them is this. "Do you want to run your country yourselves or do you want to let the Communists run it for you? If you want to run it yourselves, then the only answer is Malaysia."

3.17 p.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I come to deal with the gnashing of teeth and breast-beating that the Barisan Sosialis have indulged in on the question of Malaysia, I think it is necessary for me to outline the case for Malaysia insofar as it concerns the ordinary people. The Barisan Sosialis have talked a great deal about Malaysia, either from the point of view of this or that political Party or leader. We have talked of Malaysia in terms of ideologies - freedom versus despotism, anti-colonialism versus imperialism, democracy versus autocracy, socialism versus communism, and so on. Sir, I am not saying that these different ideologies are not relevant to the issue of Malaysia.

However, Sir, in our preoccupation with the ideological and political aspects of Malaysia, in our preoccupation with party interests, we have perhaps not laid enough stress on why the problem of Malaysia is important to the 10 million ordinary people who will comprise it. They are not interested in these problems. They want to know. "What does Malaysia mean to me?" Therefore, to the ordinary man in Borneo, Brunei, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya, the first question that will come to his mind and the first question that he will ask is, "Why have Malaysia'? Why cannot we go on as we have done for many decades?" He will ask, "What do I get out of Malaysia?" Then the next question he will ask - he is the man who has to decide whether Malaysia is good or bad for him - is: "In what way will Malaysia benefit me?" The ordinary man who has to look for a job and care for his family, will ask, "In what way will Malaysia benefit me, my wife and my children?" He will ask, "Would life be better off or worse off for me and my family if there were no Malaysia?" It is important, Sir, that throughout the discussion - we will later on come to the ideological aspect - not to forget this aspect of the matter - what Malaysia means to the ordinary man. In what way is it going to affect his life, for better or for worse? If we keep that viewpoint in mind all the time, then much of this ideological and other discourses will be put in their proper perspective.

If we can show that Malaysia is inevitable because it is desirable, and that the ordinary people - the 10 million in the live territories - have much to gain in the way of economic livelihood, political stability, security and social progress under Malaysia, then the opposition to Malaysia voiced on whatever grounds is really being done at the expense of the livelihood of 10 million people; that is to say, not political Parties, not ideologies. The stakes are the livelihood of 10 million people.

Let me, therefore, begin by attempting to answer the first question: "Why have Malaysia'? Why cannot we go on as we are?" Sir, the first point to note about Malaysia is that it is not something which we are going to create out of thin air. Lots of us are talking about Malaysia as if it does not exist: as if we are going to start from scratch. But I say, Sir, the basis for Malaysia already exists. Malaysia is not something which was built out of thin air. It exists. It has already been created for us by British colonialism. The five States of Malaysia - the Federation, Singapore. Brunei, Sabah (or North Borneo) and Sarawak - have been run by the British more or less as an integrated trading, financial and administrative unit. The trade of these five territories is interdependent. That is important to remember. The prosperity of these five territories today is interdependent. For example, Sir, in 1960, some 32 per cent of the total exports of these five territories were with one another. That is, more than one-third of the trade of these five territories was among themselves. Similarly, Sir, some 32 per cent of the total imports were again from among members of the Malaysia group. So in so far as one-third of the total imports and exports are concerned, they do export to and import from one another. To that extent, it is an interdependent economic unit. To that extent, Malaysia exists. In fact, Sir, inter-trading is not only on a substantial scale but it is also an essential feature of their trading pattern. These close trading links were maintained by the unifying administration of British colonialism. Even after the grant of independence to the Federation and partial internal self-government to Singapore, these trade links have not been appreciably loosened because the Borneo territories are still administered by the British. For example, Sir, in 1960, Singapore exported over $10 million worth of goods to North Borneo alone. So to that extent, Sir, Malaysia is not something we are going to create out of thin air. It exists. The problem is not whether we want to create Malaysia but whether we wish to retain the interdependence which has been of mutual benefit to all of these territories.

Even more important than trade is the unifying influence of a common currency. Thanks to a sound financial structure and monetary stability in the five territories, the Straits dollar today enjoys a prestige, confidence and value as few other currencies do in the whole of South-East Asia.

Whatever the iniquities of British colonialism, it has created a unified trade and monetary pattern. Intelligent nationalists, who are really interested in the fate of 10 million people - 10 million people whose jobs and livelihood depend upon the continuance of the interdependence both of trade and a unified currency - and not interested in their own political future and whether or not they are going to be the government, such intelligent nationalists and socialists should use this interdependence as a basis for building a more just and equal society in Malaysia. If any one of us are really interested in the welfare and livelihood of these 10 million people, then we should maintain this interdependence and use it to build and shape a more just and equitable society that we all want.

Sir, the liquidation of colonialism does not mean the liquidation of all the creations of Western imperialism - all the things that Western imperialism brought in its train, whether they be scientific techniques, health and social welfare measures, modern methods of economic organisation and development, and the unification of pocket principalities into an integrated trading and monetary pattern. When we talk of the inevitability of Malaysia, we work on the assumption that the ordinary man will not lose something to destroy his own livelihood. That is the basis when we say it is inevitable, because we believe that the people are not so stupid as to destroy something on which they depend for their livelihood and for their survival. Therefore, Sir, the urge towards Malaysia arises from the realisation that in the context of the Asian revolution the British must pull out of the Borneo territories as well as Singapore as colonial overlords. That again is an inevitable process of history. Sooner or later, the British must pull out. It is also inevitable that when the choice comes, the 10 million people, who are not interested in standing for election either in Singapore or in the Federation, will say, "How is this unified trading and monetary structure to be preserved once the British pull out the other unifying force? Who is to replace that force?" Therefore, Sib, the rising tide of anti-colonialism in this region makes the retreat of British colonialism inevitable and the British know it.

As you know, Sir, only a few weeks ago the British Prime Minister reminded his people that his country was no longer a first-class power and that it could no longer play the dominant role it once did in world affairs. Therefore, the indications plainly are that whether she likes it or not Britain will be forced to give in to anti-colonial pressure in the Malaysian region, including Singapore.

Therefore, the problem for the 10 million ordinary people who are not interested in ideologies, party conflicts, colonialism versus democracy, imperialism versus autocracy, is this. All they want to know is how to retain the unifying influence that the British exerted in this region'? Who is to fill the unifying role that Britain once played in the Malaysia region? Or are we, as the Barisan Sosialis hope and fight for, to break Malaysia into small, isolated and contending units'? The consequences of Balkanisation of Malaysia should be obvious to even the meanest of intelligence, the meanest of Marxists, whether they are Groucho Marxists or Harpo Marxists. It should ha obvious to them that the Balkanisation of Malaysia into self-governing independent units must inevitably mean the break-up of the existing financial and trading pattern in Malaysia. That is so obvious that we cannot therefore understand how the Barisan Sosialis (not so long ago they were for Malaysia in principle, but yesterday it was quite clear they were out to break up Malaysia) propose to ensure to 10 million people that the unifying influence which the British exerted here to a common trading policy, and a common economic pattern, is to be retained to ensure their economic survival. Balkanisation must mean the dislocation of trade between these territories from whose disastrous consequences none of the 10 million people can escape. Once you break up the trading pattern, the consequences will be felt from Jesselton to Kuala Lumpur. As independent economic units, each of these territories will enter a period of bitter economic and trade rivalry to ensure their survival. Only there can be no survival but the gradual impoverishment and exhaustion.

Therefore, as I shall show later, Sir, we submit that the Barisan Sosialis want such a situation in the whole of the Borneo territories. Their exaction

• impoverishment. Because that is the soil on which Communism can flourish. I charge that the Barisan Sosialis are deliberately bringing about this situation knowing full well that the consequences of it would mean the economic impoverishment and disruption of thits territory. That is exactly what they want. I shall show the reason why they want to break up and balkanise Malaysia to create a vast slum extending from the Federation to the North Borneo territories. For example, Sir, if we accept the contention of the Barisan Sosialis that Malaysia should be thwarted, that instead of Malaysia we should have five independent territories, self-determination for these territories, what answer have they to the simple day-to-day problems which will arise the day the five territories break up? What, for example, is to happen to the single currency system that now obtains when independence comes to these countries? If there are going to be independent territories, is it suggested that each of these States - North Borneo, Brunei, Sarawak, Singapore and the Federation - should each issue their own currency and follow their own monetary policies? If that is the case, what then is to happen to the Straits dollar which is highly valued throughout South-East Asia? It is more or less the common currency throughout South-East Asia and as highly valued as the American dollar, primarily because it happens to be the common currency of five of the most prosperous and politically stable countries in South-East Asia. Any merchant will tell you that a Straits dollar is valuable for legitimate as well as illegitimate trading in the whole of South-East Asia. The break up of the Straits dollar into five independent currencies, which is inevitable if you do not have Malaysia, is more likely to hit Singapore hardest, because it is the heart of Malaysian trade. Ambitious political leaders and great revolutionaries might find comfort in the thought that in a balkanised and impoverished Malaysia, they can still boast that there will be five Prime Ministers, five Foreign Ministers, five Finance Ministers and five of every kind of Ministers

The Prime Minister: Five Navy, Army and Air Forces.

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, five Navy, Army and Air Forces, and even five internal security arrangements, but only at the cost of turning out five different currencies of doubtful value. I need not point to the consequences of that. The logical conclusion that must follow from the break-up of Malaysia is that if the Straits dollar is broken up, the consequences for the trader, the worker and other wage-earners are too obvious to mention.

Once the States of Malaysia are balkanised in any case, their independence would be both temporary and precarious. They must sooner or later come under the influence of new and stronger overlords. A balkanised Malaysia will be a derelict empire ready for occupation by any freebooting power or adventurer.

Malaysia, therefore, is obvious and inevitable. That is what we mean when we keep on saying inevitable, a word which exasperated the Member for Queenstown - because you refuse to believe that 10 million people would commit economic suicide and ensure their impoverishment by destroying something which already exists and which ensures their prosperity, such as it is. Malaysia is the obvious and inevitable answer to the question: "Who is to fill the vacuum created by the evacuation of British colonialism?" The answer is: "The five territories collectively." That is the essence of Malaysia. A vacuum must be created sooner or later and therefore that vacuum must be filled collectively by the five territories. Malaysia will provide the unifying influence once exerted by the British; only this time it will be a unification in the interests of an independent Malaysia instead of British colonialism. Malaysia, by preventing the balkanisation of this area, will ensure the political integrity and independence of these States as well as maintaining their economic prosperity and financial stability.

Sir, I shall not, at this point, deal with the real reasons why the Barisan Sosialis have become fervent advocates of balkanisation. All I want to point out is that they are not the socialists that they claim to be, that they are really anti-nationalists in resisting Malaysia. As nationalists the obvious and logical thing for them to do is to strive for the preservation of the territorial unity of States that once formed part of an empire, simply because in the contemporary world of super States and contending great powers, larger political and economic units have a greater survival value. It is obviously in the interest of the 10 million people of Malaysia to preserve the territorial integrity and unity of the five States.

Sir, only a few days ago the Barisan Sosialis were pleading for the territorial integrity of Indonesia by demanding the return of West Irian to Indonesia. We think it is a very laudable thing. We, like the Barisan Sosialis, regard West Irian as an integral part of Indonesia primarily because it was part of the Dutch Empire. We no more wish to see Indonesia balkanised by the Dutch colonialists than we wish to see Malaysia balkanised by the Barisan Sosialis - the Dutchmen of Malaysia.

Surely, Sir, if the British colonialists have been able to govern Malaysia for decades as a unified administration, we, the nationalists of Malaysia, should be as capable and as eager to provide this area with a unified administration ourselves. In other words, Sir, what we are saying is: you do not have to create Malaysia. All we ask is that the nationalists in the interest of the 10 million people should preserve an administration which already exists. Let us work that administration. It is a measure of the kind of Stone Age thinking of the Barisan Sosialis that they should brand attempts to prevent the balkanisation of Malaysia as neo-colonialism and reactionary.

Similarly, Sir, as socialists, we should not only welcome, but also work hard to preserve the economic unity of Malaysia in order to ensure the rapid economic advance of its peoples and to develop the potentialities of the 10 million people. As you know, modern economic planning and development is likely to be more rapid and more effective in large and populous geographical areas. That is the basis today of modem economic development. We have to think in terms of larger economic and political units. Malaysia embraces an area of 130,000 square miles. This is nearly two and a half times as large as any individual territory in Malaysia. In terms of population, we would have the markets, the skills and the labour power of some 10 million people.

As an integrated political and economic unit, the economic potentialities of Malaysia are increased manifold. It can undertake development and enterprises which the States cannot do individually. For example, it would not be feasible to set up large industrial plants in any one of the territories because these individual territories have no worthwhile markets to offer. But where the potential market for any industry is in the region of 10 million people, industrialisation becomes both worthwhile and rapid. For example, where the output of a steel plant is about 50,000 tons a year, I am told that the cost per ton is estimated at $630. But where the output is 250,000 tons a year, the cost is reduced to $475 per ton. This is an indication that economic planning and industrial development in larger units is economic, more efficient and rapid.

Economic planning and industrial development on a Malaysian scale brings other advantages which are denied where planning and enterprise is on a State scale. As far as capital is concerned, Malaysia would have the accumulated savings of 10 million people and, because of the area and population involved, would also attract foreign capital. Where planning is on a Malaysian scale, scarce technicians and other professional skill can be more efficiently and fairly distributed. Conversely, the training of scarce technicians, administrators and professional men can be undertaken cheaply and efficiently. It is obviously uneconomic for each of the five territories to duplicate universities, training institutes, technical and agricultural schools.

Sir, this by no means exhausts the list of substantial advantages that the ordinary people will derive from economic development and planning on a pan-Malaysian scale.

Sir, the economic, political and financial case for the preservation of Malaysia under conditions of independence is so strong -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but there seems to be an earphone which is being used as a loudspeaker somewhere. I do not know whether it is on the Opposition Benches or in the Strangers' Gallery. Could Members have a look and turn off the switches?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the economic, political and financial case for the preservation of Malaysia is so strong that many of us are wondering why the Marx Brothers in the Barisan Sosialis are trying to sabotage it. It is significant that the Barisan Sosialis have never at any time attempted to refute the economic and financial arguments in favour of Malaysia - that is, in matters that concern the livelihood, the material and social advancement of the ordinary people. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis are the people who talk every now and then with reference to the people and the masses wanting this and that, the people are for us, the people are behind us, and so on. They are always talking about the people. Therefore, one would have thought that, whatever policies they might pursue, at least they would have borne in mind the interest of the 10 million masses. How are they going to ensure the economic livelihood and future of 10 million people who exist today and whose prosperity is due to the fact that this is an integrated trading and economic unit? In fact, Sir, it is necessary not only for the purpose of these logical arguments but for further arguments to define here what the Barisan Sosialis mean when they talk of the people and the masses. It is most important - as I propose to define - what exactly they mean by masses and people. Once we know exactly what they mean, many of their double-talk, somersaults and confusion will become clear. It is my submission that when they talk of "the masses" and "the people", they are defining them not in the ordinary meaning of the words but in the Communist or Leninist sense of the words. In fact, Sir, a great deal of the jargon used by the Barisan Sosialis would be less confusing if we were to accept the Barisan Sosialis for what it really is - a Communist front organisation working for Communist aims and objectives. It is necessary, Sir, for us to bear that in mind. The pretence that the Barisan Sosialis are a conglomeration of non-Communist, socialist agrarian reformers cannot be maintained any longer. If we simply call the Barisan Sosialis "the Front" and give their jargon the interpretation that trained Communists put on it, we shall get a clearer understanding of the Barisan's strange posturings on many issues, including the issue of Malaysia. Since the Barisan Sosialis talk so often about the masses, the people, the people of Malaysia, the people of Singapore, the people of the Federation, the people of Sarawak, the masses of Borneo, it will help us to understand the Barisan Sosialis dialectical thinking if we ascertain what they mean when they talk of masses and people - and most important when they talk of masses and people in the sense that Lenin has told Communist cadres to think of the masses.

Sir, let me quote from the great master himself - Selected Works, Vol. 10, pages 286 -287. It is most important to understand this quotation when they talk of the masses and the people, because it will make clear what exactly they mean when they talk of the people. This is what Lenin said:

`I would like to say just a few words about the meaning of the term "masses". The meaning of the term "masses" changes in accordance with the changes in the character of the struggle [the struggle, Sir, is the Communist struggle] ... During our revolution [he was then talking of the Russian Revolution] there were occasions when several thousand workers represented the masses... When the revolution has been sufficiently prepared [that is, when you are ready to take over], the term "masses" acquires a different meaning. Then several thousand workers can no longer be called masses [that means the people whom you called the masses before the revolution cease to be masses when conditions are ripe for the revolution]. The word begins to acquire a different meaning. The term "masses" then means the majority: [that means before that it was not the majority but when you are ready to take over then the word "masses" means the majority; before that it might have been a minority] not merely the majority of workers, hut the majority of all the exploited. No other meaning can be accepted by a revolutionary; [that is important - no other meaning of the term "masses" can be accepted by a revolutionary] if any other meaning were attached to this word it would be unintelligible. A very small party is sufficient to lead the masses ... But in order to achieve victory you must have the sympathy of the masses.'.

Therefore, Sir, when the Barisan Sosialis talk of the masses and the people, it might mean anything from 13 Barisan Sosialis Members to 25 Barisan Sosialis Party members. They do not mean the people as a whole or even, to quote Lenin, "a majority of the people". That is not what they mean by people or masses. It does not mean the majority. It might even mean two Barisan Sosialis Members can become the masses at certain times. So when the Barisan Sosialis talk of the masses, it is quite clear, Sir, that they mean all those who support the Barisan Sosialis or the Communists: those are the masses. In fact, Sir, in another of his works, Vol. 6, pages 70 - 71, Lenin has dismissed the will of the majority as irrelevant when one talks of the masses. That again is important. So the masses may not mean the majority. It can also mean ignoring the will of the majority. I will quote the relevant bit:

`This is the International of those "internationalists in deed" whom I specifically enumerated above. They alone represent revolutionary, international masses ... Let every Russian worker ask himself how many really conscious revolutionaries there were in Russia on the eve of the February-March Revolution of 1917. [In fact, Sir, it goes on to say that there were very few of them:] The question is not one of numbers [that is important: the question is not one of numbers - when you are talking of masses, it means something else: when you talk of the majority of the people, according to Lenin and everybody who accepts the precepts of Lenin, it is not a question of numbers] but of giving correct expression to the ideas and policy of the truly revolutionary proletariat.'.

Therefore, "masses" means again only the people who support the Communists: "majority" also means only those who support the Communists. There might be only six but it still constitutes the majority of the people.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is quoting from certain books. I wonder whether those books are readily available in the National Library.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, these works are not only available but they disprove the contention of the Barisan Sosialis from time to time that the wicked P.A.P. Government prohibit and ban progressive books. These are Lenin's works printed in Moscow and circulated here. But the difference is that the Barisan Sosialis do not read the relevant passages. When their masters tell them the majority of the workers are behind them, many of them really do not know that their true mentors are referring to the majority in the sense that the Leninists mean. The little gentlemen here really think that they have the masses behind them when, in fact, there might be only six or seven. As you know, Sir, during the school riots -

Mr Bani: On a point of clarification.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: I do not think the Minister for Culture need go to the extent of quoting passages from textbooks on Leninism and Marxism. If he wants to know the definition of "people", as defined by the Barisan Sosialis, then I say hold elections. It is as simple as that.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I am coming to that. I have a great deal to say about elections. He says that parliamentary elections are only important in so far as the Communists can use elections to capture power.

Mr Bani: Point of order, Is it relevant to the motion before the House?

Mr Speaker: I think possibly the Minister is now inviting a debate on Leninism, Marxism, and so on. I do not think he should go into too many details because once he starts that, it opens out a debate on the subject. Perhaps he could just indicate what is in his mind, and then leave it at that, and stop quoting from books. Apparently the books are known to the Opposition.

Mr Rajaratnam: May I submit, Sir, that this is essential because many of their own followers get confused when the Barisan Sosialis talk about the people in Sarawak not wanting Malaysia, the people in Singapore not wanting this and that, the majority of the people are behind this and that. My contention, Sir, as I shall show later, is that the Barisan Sosialis are a Communist front organisation and they use Communist jargon to delude and cheat the people of this country.

Mr Bani: Rubbish!

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister can make his point in quite a brief manner instead of going into details and quoting from books. I do not think that is proper in a debate of this nature.

Mr Rajaratnam: May I therefore reply simply to the exchange of fraternal greetings across the Floor? May I just therefore quote one last relevant bit from the great master himself to show that, by and large, the Barisan technique is, if necessary, to stop Malaysia by indulging in tactics which do not exactly give credence to their claim that they are a non-Communist, socialist, democratic, and a parliamentary democratic Party? Lenin says it is necessary that a majority of the people be established after the Communist Party has seized power - you seize power and then you declare who are the majority of the people. He says here, Sir:

`The traitors, blockheads and pedants of the Second International [i.e. people like us, the weak social democrats] could never understand this dialectics - that the proletariat cannot triumph unless it wins a majority of the population over to its side, but that to confine the winning of a majority to, or make it conditional upon, obtaining a majority of votes at the polls under the rule of the bourgeoisie is either the densest stupidity, or a sheer attempt to foil the workers. In order to win the majority of the population, the proletariat [i.e. the Communists] must, in the first place, overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize the power of the state.'

This ties up, Sir, with a statement made by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis at a rally to support West Irian. He said, "Constitutional methods of struggle are useless." So, Sir, you establish a majority, not in terms of winning a majority of votes - all that is nonsense - but you seize power and declare that, "We are the majority."

That is important because if our thesis is that the Barisan Sosialis has not only become a Communist front but has also become a tool of a Party more powerful than the Barisan Sosialis to sabotage Malaysia, then it is necessary for us to understand the workings and thinking and strategy not of the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members - who are just frontmen, and as I said the Barisan, meaning the Front - but of the people who really direct the Barisan Sosialis and who are interested in higher stakes than standing for election to this Assembly.

I have elaborated at length on the definitions of "masses", "people", and "majority", to show that when the Barisan talks of the masses being opposed to Malaysia, they do not mean that the masses would lose out on merger, that the people are going to suffer under merger, that the people are opposed to the abolition of the Internal Security Council, or that the Government is not heeding the voice of the masses. What they mean is that the Communist overlords are unhappy and angry that we are not listening to the voice of the masses, i.e. the Communists. And when they say that the masses are demanding this or that, or that we are not heeding the wishes of the masses, what they really mean is that we are not conceding to the wishes pf the communists. When they talk of the welfare and interest of the masses of Malaysia., what they are concerned about is not the welfare of the 10 million people but of the Communist conspirators in Malaysia.

Therefore, Sir, it is important for us to get that point across. When they talk of the masses, the masses fight it out with the Communists; and the whole argument and the whole stand become clear and logical.

Malaysia, Sir, as I have shown, is necessary for the economic advancement and welfare of the 10 million people scattered throughout the five territories. Though it is good for the people, the economic and political arguments show that it is good. Even the Barisan Sosialis say that, in principle, it is a good thing, but in practice it is bad for the Communists and therefore it must be resisted. The Balkanisation of Malaysia may mean economic dislocation and suffering for the vast majority of the 10 million people. But the Barisan Sosialis are not thinking of the people or the masses in the sense that you and I mean. That is small consideration - the sacrifice of the masses in the ordinary sense of the word - compared with the possible sacrifice of the masses that Leninists have, i.e. the Communists.

Sir, the question may be asked: why is it in the interests of the Communists to balkanise Malaysia and shatter the economy on which the prosperity of Malaysia is founded? The Barisan Sosialis oppose merger for the same reason that led them to oppose Malaysia. In both cases what the non-Communists are seeking is the creation of a strong and prosperous national state through integration of the economy and administration of this area. The Communists know that this strong, unified and relatively prosperous state cannot, in the immediate future, come under their control. They know that if an independent Malaysia comes about today, it would pass into the hands of a non-Communist regime, the nationalists.

Sir, whatever theories the Communists might have about the anti-colonial struggle, arid so on - before the war the anti-colonial struggle was still in theory, hut after the war the people have been successful in their anti-colonial struggle throughout Asia and Africa and the Communists have not failed to note the exasperating fact that the collapse of imperialism in colonial Asia and Africa has almost invariably been succeeded not by Communist regimes but by non-Communist nationalist regimes: India, Ceylon, Burma, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Ghana, and so on. In every case, Sir, though the Communists are at the forefront of the anti-colonial struggle (and we are not denying that), after its success in the anti-colonial struggle, what was established was not a Communist government but a nationalist government. That is relevant, Sir, to Mr Aidit's piece on Malaysia. Some of the anti-colonialists, as I said, play a foremost part in the anti-colonial struggle. Yet in every case when colonialism is smashed, it is not the Communists but the nationalists who succeed in taking over power.

In some of the countries that have gained independence, the Communists attempted revolutionary seizure of power. Not only did they provoke nationalism into open enmity with them but it resulted in the crushing of the Communists. In India and in Burma, Communist attempts to seize power ended in disaster for them. In Egypt, President Nasser, though he is on the best of terms with the Russians and the Communists, deals pretty roughly with his own Communists. Again, Sir, in 1948 when the Indonesian Communists staged a revolutionary uprising in Madium, they took more than they bargained for.

Sir, in view of the allegations made by the Barisan Sosialis that supporters of merger and Malaysia are pro-colonial stooges, it may be well to remind them what the P.K.I. leaders called President Soekarno in 1948 when the Communists decided to seize power, and in fact attempted to seize power in Madium. This is how Musso -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister for Finance seems to be very preoccupied. Earlier on the Minister for Culture walked through the Bar without paying respects to the Chair. I did not pull him up because I thought the Minister for Culture was preoccupied with his speech. And now we get the Minister for Finance walking right through, completely preoccupied.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Oh. I am sorry.

Mr Speaker: I just remarked on it because it seemed to me that the Ministers are very preoccupied.

Mr Rajaratnam: I was not as preoccupied as some of the Members opposite, Sir.

It is now the fashion of the Barisan Sosialis to call those who support Malaysia and merger as pro-colonial stooges, agents of imperialism, and so on. It is perhaps important to remind them that whenever the Communists decide to use the word "masses", or "majority", the meaning changes under party political context. For example, in Madium when the Communists staged an uprising, Musso, one of the top Communist leaders, described President Soekarno as: "Soekarno-Hatta, the slaves of Japan and America! Traitors must die!" And a Communist broadcast described the Madium uprising as a popular uprising against the Government of the Fascist Japanese Quisling, Soekarno and Hatta. These are the same people, Sir, who put up posters today for Soekarno. Their own leaders, when it suited their interest, called Soekarno and Hatta slaves of Japan and America - Fascist Japanese Quislings, Soekarno and Hatta. So whether a nationalist leader is a "progressive" or a "colonial stooge" depends on whether the leader happens to be pursuing a policy which is favourable or unfavourable to the Communists.

Just to round off the story. May I say, Sir, that the Madium uprising failed and Musso and a few other gentlemen were executed by the nationalists. But that is in passing.

Sir, every time the Communists try their strength with the nationalists they meet with disaster. That is a historical law. To use another phrase which they can understand - the law of social development. Even in Syria, Sir, some of those in the United Arab Republic who tried to break up the two territories ended by having in Syria a government which is far more Right-wing than they expected. Similarly, Sir, in Hitler's Germany, the Communists again tried to double-cross the socialists and they ended up with Hitler.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder how the Minister can relate all those remarks to the motion. Shall we try and come to the motion as quickly as possible?

Mr Rajaratnam: It is quite pertinent, Sir. My thesis is that they are anti-nationalists and if they are fighting the nationalists they are going to conic a cropper, as many Communists did in Germany, Italy, Spain and even the United Arab Republic. That is just an indication that whoever play with the forces of history, and if the forces of history happen to be going one way and they happen to be going the other way, then they are going to face disaster. And this fact - that is, every time they take on the nationalists, they lose out to the nationalists - the Communists find extremely baffling. So rather than admit that the people, the masses of these territories, after independence, are not enamoured of what is called the dictatorship of the proletariat, therefore, the Communists try to explain the whole thing away by saying that any nationalist regime that does not play the Communist game cannot be really independent. That is another talk, Sir. When the Barisan Sosialis talk about phoney independence or that the Tunku is not independent, what they mean is this. Their theory says that once the anti-colonial revolution is over, the masses, the people, should automatically support Communism. But in fact just the opposite happens. The nationalists will take over and the Communists are pushed around. So they have to explain how is it that during elections it is not the Communists who win, but it is the nationalists who win. Therefore, they say, well, if that happens, that must be not because of anything else but that the country is really not independent.

For example, Sir, yesterday's Straits Times published an interview Mr Alex Josey -

An hon. Member: Your adviser.

Mr Rajaratnam: - had with Mr Aidit, who is your adviser. I am sorry, Sir, the adviser of the Barisan Sosialis, and it is better advice that Mr Alex Josey gives me than Mr Aidit is giving them, as they will soon discover, Sir, we in Singapore have never commented on the activities of the P.K.I., that is, the Indonesian Communist Party, because what the P.K.I. says or does is solely the business of the Indonesian people. But when the P.K.I. takes it upon itself to join in the campaign to sabotage merger and Malaysia, then the people of Malaysia have the right to counter P.K.I. mischief in Malaysia. I shall deal later with the P.K.I.'s attempts to incite their local stooges to break up Malaysia. Just now I would like to show why Mr Aidit in his article and other Communists keep on describing as not fully independent countries which everyone else accepts as independent, including the Federation. We put forward a merger. They say it is a phoney merger because it does not give full independence. Malaysia - well, that is a phoney Malaysia because it does not give full independence.

4.23 p.m.

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

Mr Rajaratnam: It is necessary for us, therefore, again to understand exactly what they mean by independence. As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, they give meanings to words like "majority", "people", and "masses" which are quite different from the ordinary dictionary meanings, that is the meanings that ordinary people give to these words. Therefore, again, we must understand what exactly they mean by independence. The countries which everybody else accepts as independent they say are not fully independent. It is their way of getting out of the theoretical dilemma why the anti-colonial struggle invariably ends in a victory for the nationalists rather than for the Communists. This fact, Sir, has puzzled many Communist camp followers who think that the colonial masses should take to Communism like ducks take to water. So Mr Aidit offers for the consolation of dispirited Communists and the dispirited Barisan Sosialis the theory of what they call "neo-colonialism" - the new colonialism. He says - and I quote from the interview. This is essential because on this definition he builds his case against Malaysia:

`Neo-colonialism is a new form of colonialism...'.

That, Sir, as logic is not profound. It is like saying, Dog is equal to dog.' Neo-colonialism is a new form of colonialism.' But that certainly must have impressed and puzzled the Members of the Barisan Sosialis because it comes from Aidit -

Mr Bani: Sir, on a point of clarification.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: Is the Minister suggesting that there is no such thing as neo-colonialism?

Mr Rajaratnam: I am not suggesting that there is no such thing as neo-colonialism, but I was going to indicate that the term "neo-colonialism" is being used to bamboozle people into believing that an independent country is not independent, as I shall use quotations to show this not only from Aidit but from the adviser of the Barisan Sosialis and a few other gentlemen.

An hon. Member: Nkruma.

Mr Rajaratnam: Anyway he [Aidit] says:

`Neo-colonialism is a new form of colonialism, Imperialists cannot continue with the old form because of the pressure of the colonial peoples. Imperialists realise that they must be given some sort of independence, but what they arc given is not full independence because economic and cultural colonialisation remains.'

That is Mr Aidit's statement.

Now, Sir, which are these so-called neo-colonial countries, because so far we have had reference to independent countries, colonial countries. In fact, Sir, as far as I can remember, the word "neo-colonialism" had never yet been used by the Barisan Sosialis until after Aidit came. I am quite sure we will hear a great deal about neo-colonialism from now on. So what are the so-called neo-colonial countries? According to Afro-Asian countries in the United Nations, for Mr Aidit goes on to complain, and I quote, Sir:

`More and more coloured peoples are joining the -'.

Mr Bani: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: I would suggest to the Minister for Culture -

The Prime Minister: You are asking for elucidation or are you going to give elucidation?

Mr Bani: - to explain whether it is only people like Aidit, or Communists who talk of neo-colonialism, or whether there are people like Nkruma, Nasser and others, whom the PAP, leadership themselves term nationalists, who also say there is definitely neo-colonialism in the world.

Mr Rajaratnam: When Nkruma and other nationalists talk of neo-colonialism they mean anti-colonialism. But when Aidit talks of neo-colonialism he means Communism, as I am going to indicate, Sir. For example, he says:

`More and more coloured peoples are joining the United Nations, for example, but many of them have accepted less than full and complete independence.'

So obviously, Sir, there are many Afro-Asian countries in the United Nations, not just a few but many, all of whom, according to Mr Aidit's definition of neo-colonialism, are not really independent. They have accepted less than full and complete independence.

Now, Sir, we all know that no country can be admitted to the United Nations unless its members, including the Communist countries as well, are satisfied that it is a fully independent country. No country which is not fully independent can gain admission to the United Nations. There is a vigorous test, and among the testers are the Russians and the Communist countries. So the Communist test of independence obviously is not the kind of test that is applied in the United Nations. That is the point I am trying to arrive at. That when Nkruma talks of neo-colonialism and colonialism he means that certain countries are directly subject to colonial rule. But when Aidit or the Communist talk of neo-colonialism, they mean it in a completely different sense. They define it differently from the way it is defined in the United Nations by the non-Communist countries and the Communist countries. Therefore, I am trying to suggest that the Communists have again their own definition of independence; just as they have their peculiar definition of what is "people", what is "the majority" and what are "the masses" -

Mr David Marshall: And what is merger?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I notice that the Barisan Sosialis constantly need the assistance of the Member for Anson. I do not know whether he is a back-seat driver, but he is the remotest from all the 13 Assemblymen from across this side of the Chamber. Sir, if we define neo-colonialism as the refusal of independent countries to accept the Communist regime in preference to a nationalist regime, then, Mr Aidit's meaning as well as analysis becomes clear. When he says that a country has not "full independence", what he means is that it has not become Communist. The implication is that the masses really want Communism. That is, the colonial countries which have become independent - the masses

• really want Communism but cannot realise their hopes because of the mysterious power called neo-colonialism which frustrates their desire. So in that way he pleases the Communists. He says historically if there is real independence, then the whole world would go Communist. But at the moment, even an independent country is really neo-colonialist, and therefore the masses are still with the Communists.

Mr David Marshall: Indonesia is not Communist.

The Prime Minister: That is what Mr Aidit said.

Mr Rajaratnam: I am just coming to that point. The neo-colonialists are therefore people who are nationalists but not Communists. Mr Aidit makes this clear when he says that Indonesia is not fully independent either. It is quite clear in this article. This can only mean that President Soekarno is himself - according to Aidit's definition - the head of a neo-colonial country, a country which is not fully independent. Sir, I will quote Aidit, who is a better authority. This is what he says in the interview:

`Basically the economy is not in the hands of the native people but foreigners. We still have the problem of neo-colonialism in Indonesia.'

All this talk, Sir, of independent countries. Here he says:

`We still have the problem of neo-colonialism in Indonesia.'

As I have pointed out earlier, Sir, the P.K.I. once called Soekarno a Quisling and a traitor. Now to get across their point, they even imply that President Soekarno is the President of a neo-colonial territory.

`Much of our industry, for example, belongs to the foreigners. Culturally our determination to develop along our own lines is very strong, but the imperialists still penetrate with worthless films and words and so forth.'

Now, Sir, intelligent people will find it hard to swallow that Indonesia is not fully independent or that it is, after all, a neo-colonial country. But if we bear in mind that when a Communist says that a country is not independent, what he means is that it is not Communist, or that it frustrates Communist designs to turn the country into a Communist outpost, then we are not likely to be confused. Sir, when they say there is no political independence, this is not independence, or that we are not working towards independence, what they really mean is to cross out the word "independence" and put the word "Communist"; the whole thing becomes clear.

Similarly. Sir, when the pocket Aidits of the Barisan Sosialis claim that the Federation is not independent and imply that the Tunku is a Western colonial stooge, what their double-talk really means is that the Federation is not independent because it is not giving Communists and pro-Communists a free hand to pave the way for a Communist takeover.

By the test of the United Nations, the Federation is independent. I believe there are 92 nations. They have decided that the Federation is independent and allow it a seat there; otherwise, it would not have been admitted as a member. It may be that the Barisan Sosialis will contend that even the United Nations is an imperialist stooge organisation and, therefore, its judgment about whether the Federation is or is not independent is invalid.

Let me therefore quote from impeccable authority:

`Right up to the end of 1955 it seemed impossible that the British would make any imaginative political move which would turn the flanks as it were of the armed revolt -'.

Mr Bani rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): On a point of order?

Mr Bani: On a point of order. Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, all this rubbish is irrelevant to the debate in the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker: First of all, I wish to remind the Member for Thomson that if there are any allegations or any points which he wishes to raise, he will have a good opportunity to do so when he speaks on the motion, and if there is any point which is irrelevant or rubbish concerning this motion, the Chair will always rule it out of order. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the Member not entitled to make the irrelevancy of the speech by another Member a point of order?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Nobody has denied the Member's right. If the Member for Anson has misunderstood me, it is not my fault. I have never denied any Member in the Assembly his right to stand on a point of order.

Mr Bani rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Bani: Yes. I would like you to rule, Sir, whether what the Minister for Culture is touching upon now is relevant to the motion before the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So far as I can understand it, there has been an accusation or implication that the Federation of Malaya is not completely independent. So the Minister is going to prove that the Federation of Malaya is a completely independent nation. So far it is completely relevant.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, what I say may not be relevant, but the authority I quote is very relevant. I think the Member for Thomson would accept it as such.

`Right up to the end of 1955 it seemed impossible that the British would make any imaginative political move which would turn the flanks as it were of the armed revolt But the British today have opted out of the struggle. [They have opted out of the Federation] It is no more their fight - at least not officially. It has become a fight between a popular government (unquestionably popular) [I repeat, Sir, a popular government (unquestionably popular)] and a section of the population which has not been fully accepted as part of Malayan society - "aliens in fact".'

Sir, the relevant authority is Mr James Puthucheary, adviser to the Barisan Sosialis

• incidentally also the man who advised Mr Lim Ching Siong and his comrades that they could make a secret deal with the U.K. Commission to oust the P.A.P. Government.

I am quoting from a bock called The Battle for Merger. I hope many Members have read it. As you know, Sir, it contains, besides the Prime Minister's radio talks, some interesting contributions by leading personalities in the Barisan Sosialis.

It may be, Sir, that even Mr Puthucheary may now be suspect and his claim that the Federation Government is "unquestionably popular" even more suspect. So I must quote still higher authority. This comprises the following Barisan Sosialis apostles - Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Puthucheary, Mr Chan Chiaw Thor and Mr Woodhull. I again quote from documents from The Battle for Merger. This is what is said there by the four gentlemen who are now in the Barisan Sosialis:

`"No sane person can claim today that the M.C.P. revolt is directed against British imperialist domination of Malaya. Malaya today is ruled by a popularly elected government which is in full political and administrative control of the country, a government which has been freely and openly recognised by the governments of all nations ... including the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China."'

So, how then, Sir, are we to describe the state of mind of the Member for Queenstown who contends otherwise, when his own advisers, the important members of the Party, analysed the situation in the calm quiet of a detention camp, came to the conclusion that the Federation was not only an independent government, but undoubtedly popular? And now we are told, Sir, that the Tunku is a stooge, and the Federation is not independent. It may be, Sir, that even the Dutchmen of these people, these four that I mentioned, on whether the Tunku is or is not a stooge of the British may be suspect. Therefore, Sir, I must go for still higher authority, an authority which no Member of the Barisan Sosialis can dare refute, and I quote the highest of all authorities - Chin Peng. This is what Chin Peng said at the Baling talks at which the Member for Anson was present in 1955. I quote from the White Paper on the talks:

`Chin Peng then spoke for the first time: "First and foremost, I wish to say that it is precisely because we realise [This, he was talking to the Tunku] that you are not the spokesman of the British Government and are not the running dog of the British Government, the stooge of the British Government, that we have come out to meet you at the risk of our lives."'

Chin Peng said, Sir, that the Tunku was not a stooge of the British Government: that he was not the spokesman of the British Government. But the little men who aspire to be small Chin Pengs say otherwise -

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Neo-Chin Peng!

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, therefore, today you find after all these authorities, starting from the adviser to the Barisan Sosialis (I presume, Sir, he is still the adviser to the Barisan Sosialis) to Mr Fong Swee Suan and so on, and culminating in Chin Peng's statement - his judgment on whether the Tunku was a stooge and whether the Federation was independent. Therefore, it is difficult to find that the Barisan Sosialis and the Communist godfathers in Indonesia contend that the Tunku is a cat's-paw of the British and that, to quote Mr Aidit, the Federation's independence is an illusion.

So when the Barisan Sosialis imply that the Tunku is a British stooge and that the Federation is not fully independent, they are defining "independence" in the way a Communist defines it - a colonial country is not independent if it is not Communist. If you bear that definition in mind, every lime they talk of "independent" or "not fully independent", we know what they really mean. When they talk of independence they mean a colonial country is not independent if it is not Communist. So when the Barisan Sosialis talk about fighting for full independence and carrying on the colonial struggle, what they really mean is that the fight must be carried on until a Communist Singapore, a Communist Malaya and a Communist Malaysia is achieved. That is what they mean by an anti-colonial struggle. They keep on talking about the anti-colonial struggle is not finished in the Federation. To the ordinary people, it does not make sense. But if you cross out "anti-colonial" and put "Communist struggle", the fight for independence means to strive for a Communist Federation, then the whole thing becomes quite clear. So if you constantly bear in mind that if the Barisan Sosialis talk of carrying on the anti-colonial struggle, what they really mean is carrying on the struggle for Communism; and that when they talk of an independent Malaya or Malaysia, what they really mean is a Communist Malaya or Malaysia, then all their confusing antics, somersaults and double-talk become clear.

For example, there is their inexplicable attitude towards merger. The nationalists say that the best way to liquidate British colonialism and gain independence for Singapore is by merging with the Federation. But the Barisan say it is a pro-colonialist and reactionary merger. The true anti-colonialist solution, the Barisan Sosialis claim, is to fight for full internal self-government while leaving defence and foreign affairs in British hands. Now, that is extremely puzzling. Here on one side we say, "Merge to get independence." They say, "No, that is pro-colonial. That is not independence." But fight for full internal self-government, hand over foreign affairs and defence to the British, and that becomes a real anti-colonial struggle. That would not make any sense unless, as J have said earlier, we define the word "independent" in the sense that the Communists mean. To struggle for independence means to struggle for a Communist Malaya. So, therefore, internal self-government without the Internal Security Council becomes an anti-colonial struggle because it advances the cause of Communism. In other words, Sir, to fight for a semi-colonial Singapore is more progressive and testifies to a more fervent anti-colonialism than to fight for a merger where foreign affairs, defence and internal security would be in the hands of Malayans, and not the British.

Sir, how are we to reconcile this absurd contradiction? By simply asking ourselves which course would be more advantageous to the Communist cause - independence through merger or internal self-government; a Malaya or Malaysia controlled by the nationalists or a Malaya or Malaysia controlled by the British?

The truth is that after their bitter experience with colonial nationalisms in Asia and Africa, the Communists have today come to the conclusion that their chances of survival and victory are better in a colonial or semi-colonial territory than in an independent territory. That is the real truth when they have analysed the position. They have decided, in view of their experiences with nationalism in Asia and Africa, where they always come a cropper, that in the present context the anti-colonial struggle - in the Communist sense, that is, to further the cause of Communism - is better in a colonial or semi-colonial Malaya or Malaysia than in an independent Malaya or Malaysia, because they know that colonialism is a weak force as it is a dying force. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a virile, dynamic and irresistible force which time after time has given Communism a had mauling wherever it tries to tame nationalism to its purpose. So while shouting fierce anti-colonial slogans, the Communists of Malaysia manoeuvre and conspire even with the British to halt the growth and unity of nationalism. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis, on behalf of their Communist mentors, are resisting merger, not because it is bad for the people but because it means a consolidation of non-Communist nationalist forces in Singapore and the Federation. They must break up merger because it means the unification of non-Communist nationalist forces. That is why the Barisan Sosialis in their desperation even went to the extent of going to the U.K. Commissioner with secret proposals that in return for full internal self-government and abolition of the Internal Security Council they were ready to let the British have their bases and run the foreign policy of Singapore. That is an admission that today the Communists in Singapore and Malaya have analysed themselves to a position where they say, "Boy, we have better chances of survival under the British than under the nationalists."

The reason is simple. Under the proposed arrangement with the British, the I.S.C. would be abolished and so the Communists hope they could have a free run in a semi-colonial Singapore. The forces of Malayan nationalism could be isolated by perpetuating the division of the two territories. When the Communists have consolidated their position in Singapore and strengthened their position in the Federation and the Borneo territories at the expense of non-Communist nationalist forces, only then can they launch an anti-colonial movement against the British. Under such conditions, a victory against colonialism could result in a take-over by the Communists and not by the nationalists. That is what they want. Today they are not ready organisationally or psychologically to take over if independence should be granted to this country. Therefore, just like the reactionaries of old, they want to postpone independence because they would rather the British continue and give them time to build up their forces sp that in a competition with the nationalists they hope that they can take over the country. But at the moment they know that if there is independence in any of these territories, they must in the competition lose out to the nationalists as they have done in every place in Asia and Africa.

The Communists know that merger and Malaysia will result in the transfer of sovereignty from the British to the Malayan nationalists and not the Communists. The Communists are not in a position today to take over control of the nationalist movement. Therefore, they cannot, for all their anti-colonial posturings, really afford to fight for the immediate liquidation of British rule in Singapore and the Borneo territories. They know that the real and most effective barrier to Communism today in Malaysia is not the British but the non-Communist nationalists.

So if the Barisan Sosialis and their pro-Communist friends were to succeed in breaking up merger and Malaysia, they know what the immediate consequences are. They know that Singapore will remain a colony under the British. If you stop merger, Singapore will still remain a colony. If you bust up Malaysia, the Borneo territories will remain British colonies. It is my thesis. Sir, that today the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists have put themselves in a humiliating position - as I said during the debate on merger - of having to prop up the British colonial regime to ensure their survival. They cannot, dare not and will not fight the local nationalists. That is precisely what the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist puppet masters really want - the maintenance of British rule in these territories until the Communists are ready to take over and not the nationalists.

Sir, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, the ordinary people in all the territories have a great deal to gain economically, politically and culturally under Malaysia. The economic and political arguments for Malaysia are irrefutable. But however good Malaysia may be for the people - that is, the ordinary men in the sense that the non-Communist use it - it is bad for the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors and therefore it must be resisted at all costs. When the Barisan Sosialis talk of Malaysia being bad for the "people" - as I said, they define it in the Leninist sense - they mean Communists and Communist stooges. As I said earlier, Sir:

`The question is not one of numbers but of giving correct expression to the ideas and policy of the true revolutionary proletariat.'.

Sir, how do the Barisan Sosialis today propose to halt merger and Malaysia?

As you know, they, the great anti-colonialists, tried to stop merger by trying to sell the independence of Singapore to the British in return for internal self-government minus the Internal Security Council. They tried to convince the British that they were non-Communist socialists who could be trusted to ensure the safety of British bases in Singapore. That is the line they were trying to put over to the British. Sir, what we must understand is that this duplicity is an integral part of Communist strategy. Here again is an example of Lenin's advice to Communist cadres. He said:

`It is necessary [for a good Communist] to agree to any and every sacrifice and even, if need be, to resort to all sorts of strategems, manoeuvres, and illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges in order to penetrate the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on Communist work in them at all costs.'.

This relates to trade unions. But to penetrate any organisation, the Communist must have no qualms about resorting to evasions, subterfuges and deceit. That is part of the Communist training. To those Communists who might have qualms about resorting to evasions, subterfuges, and illegal methods. Lenin himself had this advice to offer:

`We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the c1ass struggle ... Our morality is deduced from the class struggle.'

So, Sir, the term "class struggle" is another misleading Communist term for the Communist struggle. So what Lenin's advice means is that subterfuges, evasions, betrayals, plots with the British are justifiable so long as they promote Communism. For a Communist the definition of morality is anything which promotes the Communist struggle Subterfuges, evasions, manoeuvres, everything is justified.

Therefore, this secret plotting to sell out the independence of Singapore to the British, from the Communist point of view, from the Barisan Sosialis point of view, is justified.

That little secret deal with the British not only failed but the exposure of this deal revealed the anti-nationalist intrigues of the Barisan Sosialis. So having been exposed there, they then attempted to confuse the people and sabotage merger by asking for -full merger. This subterfuge, too, has now been exposed. They have lost the battle for merger. They are losing the battle for Malaysia, and Malaysia is an even greater threat to Communism than merger. The Malayan Communists are not in a position to halt it and so the Barisan Sosialis have turned for assistance to a new ally - the P.K.I. (the Indonesian Communist Party).

The first public indication of a sell-out of Malaysia by local Communists to the P.K.I. came in a report of an interview that Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, was supposed to have given to the pro-Communist Indonesian paper. Bintang Timur, in November. May I quote a translation of this report, Sir:

`Mr Lim Ching Siong, the foremost labour leader in Singapore, who is also the chief opponent of Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew -'.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order. Could the Minister indicate whether a copy of the Bintang Timur is available here for Members of this Assembly?

Mr Rajaratnam: No. Sir. This is from a transcript which we received from our broadcasting service. So I have only a translation here.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Minister indicate that he will table a copy for the information of hon. Members?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, this was published in the local Chinese newspapers. So you can have either one - either the transcript or a copy of the local Chinese newspapers.

The report reads:

`... the chief opponent of Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, stated to the correspondent of the Bintang Timur recently that he preferred a merger of Singapore with Indonesia to merger with the Federation of Malaya.

"We in Singapore depend very much on trade with Indonesia," said Mr Lim Ching Siong. "If Indonesia adopts a difficult attitude towards Singapore, then Singapore will be sunk. Also ii Indonesia pursues a free trade policy at any of the Rhiau Islands, then Singapore will be killed."

"Frankly, we are more in favour of a merger with Indonesia than with Malaya." said Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Ching Siong further stated that from mans years of experience Singapore has acquired as a trading centre, it has been proved to the people of Singapore that Malaya has not been able to contribute anything towards the survival of the economy and the people of Singapore. The truth is that we are very much indebted to Indonesia.'.

Now. Sir, it may strike many people as odd that such an important change of policy, by a Party which calls itself "non-Communist, democratic socialist", affecting the future fate of the people of Singapore should have been made in an Indonesian pro-Communist newspaper and not in Singapore. Nobody heard of it. In fact, the thing came to us by accident.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Could the Minister indicate how long more he will take?

Mr Rajaratnam: I will take another 15 minutes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think it is an appropriate time to suspend until 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 Speaker: The Original Question, as amended, is as appears in the second paragraph of item 1 on the Order Paper. Since which amendments have been proposed,

(1) In line 4, to leave out "plan" and insert "motion"

(2) In line 6, to leave out "in principle".

The Question is, "That the word `plan' proposed to be left out, be left out."

The debate may range over both amendments and the Original Question, as amended.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring to a report in the "Bintang Timur", a pro-Communist Indonesian newspaper, which first reported that Mr Lim Ching Siong was in favour of merger between Singapore and Indonesia rather than with the Federation of Malaya. It seemed odd. Sir, that an important change of policy - such as advocating merger of Singapore with Indonesia when, in fact, every socialist and the Barisan Sosialis in their manifesto have declared that they believe in merger of Singapore with the Federation - should have been announced in an interview with a pro-Communist paper, not in Singapore but in Indonesia. To be fair to Mr Lim, Sir, may I say that he subsequently denied having given such an interview. I am prepared to take his denial in good faith; that what he denied was that he had not given an interview to this particular paper. However, he has not denied the thesis that was attributed to him in this newspaper. So it is still a Secret. No announcement had been made that the Barisan Sosialis now favoured Singapore merging with Indonesia which, if it was really true, certainly accounts for their resistance to merger.

Then, I think it was last Monday or Tuesday, the Member for Thomson went even further when he described the Malaysia plan as anti-Indonesian. In his view, to quote the Member's own words, Sir -"Malaysia should have Indonesia as its heart-land." Sir, not even as a member, and not even as a partner, but as the heart-land of Malaysia. The term "heart-land" has a specific geo-political meaning. In fact, I think it was the prophecy of Mackinder who proposed the idea of heart-land of Euro-Asia, which was Russia. So "heart-land" has a specific geo-political meaning. In the geo-political sense of the term, it is the strategic centre from which political, economic and social power radiates to the periphery of the heart-land. That in itself is an interesting theory, Sir. That means that what we are now told is not Malaysia, but Malaysia with Indonesia as the heart-land.

Sir, some of us may have thought that the Member for Thomson was merely expressing a foolish personal view or even a madder view of the Barisan Sosialis. However, Sir, the report of the interview by Aidit, the P.K.I. leader, which appeared in the Straits Times of yesterday, now makes it all too clear that Mr Tim Ching Siong and the Member for Thomson are not echoing personal views or accidental views, but they are echoing decisions that had already been arrived at by top Indonesian Communists.

So the battle for Malaysia takes on a different meaning with each passing week. When Malaysia was first proposed, Sir, if you will recollect, the reaction of the Barisan Sosialis was neutral support and no agitation, i.e. no public agitation from one section of the Barisan Sosialis. By and large, the tendency was to accept Malaysia in principle, presumably because at that time the Barisan Sosialis were engaged in a more immediate battle against merger. And they believed that the Malaysia plan which had been propounded by the Tunku was just something airy-fairy and would die out. Therefore, they paid no great attention to it.

But it is clear now that the Barisan Sosialis are no longer a non-Communist, socialist, Malayan Party. They are but helpless creatures, the miserable stooges of the P.K.I. What is happening, Sir, with the political strip-tease that the Barisan Sosialis are indulging in, is that under pressure of events they are being forced to shed their veils one by one - the democratic veil, the non-Communist veil, the socialist veil, and now the Malayan veil. And we see before us, Sir, not the Barisan Sosialis which say that they believe in a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya, but a Barisan Sosialis which have become the branch or the messenger boy of the P.K.I. Therefore, in fighting Malaysia, the Barisan Sosialis leaders, whether Communists or adventurists, have been driven willy-nilly to embark upon the greatest betrayal of all - the sell-out of Singapore, the Federation of Malaya, and Malaysia, to the P.K.I.

Here, Sir, they are merely following instructions from the Leninist text - a good Communist must be ready to betray his own, country. That again, Sir, is an essential part of the Leninist teaching. For example, Lenin says:

`Class struggle is impossible without dealing blows to one's own bourgeoisie, one's own government, and dealing a blow to one's own government in wartime means ... [and this is important] ... high treason.'

A Communist must be prepared to practise high treason. I am quoting from Lenin:

`.... it means facilitating the defeat of one's own country.'

That again is a good Leninist text. A good disciplined Communist must accept that proposition, i.e. a good Communist must be prepared to betray his own country. That is what he called "high treason", which means "facilitating the defeat of one's own country". Is it any wonder, Sir, that everywhere Communists should come into conflict with nationalists, because once a Communist front organisation comes under the disciplined instructions of a Communist Party, then to further Communism they must be prepared to practise high treason and facilitate the defeat of their own country.

Therefore, Sir, in working as stool pigeons of the P.K.I., the Barisan Sosialis are out to facilitate the eventual domination of Malaysian territories by the P.K.I. That is why the P.K.I. has now openly come to the aid of the Barisan Sosialis and their unhappy adventurers who must now embark upon the most humiliating and most dangerous of all adventures - the sell-out of Singapore, the Federation, and Malaysia to the Indonesian Communists - the betrayal of their own country, a practice of high treason. Let us, therefore, not be deluded any longer by the facade that the Barisan Sosialis is a non-Communist, socialist, Malayan Party. It is a Communist front ready to sell out the people of Singapore to the Indonesian Communists, i.e. if the Indonesian Communists ever come to power. Therefore, Sir, let us no longer carry on this pretence that the Barisan Sosialis is a socialist Party.

Lest I be accused of being unfair when I say that the Barisan Sosialis is not a socialist, Malayan Party, let me quote a document from Tue Battle for Merger. This is a document written by Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, a Party which says that it stands for a non-Communist, socialist, democratic Malaya. This document was written to commemorate the death of Stalin who, as we know, had been removed by Khruschev. I am not quite sure whether Khruschev conies under the definition of a social democrat or a running dog of the Imperialists. But this is what Mr Lim Ching Siong said:

`We must forever remember: We have already sworn before the Red flag and old Stalin. We must resolutely uphold the interests of the Organisation at all times and under all circumstances.'. The organisation, Sir, refers to the Anti-British League, which is another Communist controlled organisation. So here is the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis who says, "We are sworn before the Red flag and old Stalin." Later on he enjoins upon his followers to read some interesting books, again from two non-socialist democratic members of the Barisan Sosialis. The books he recommends are very interesting: "Malenkov's Political Report", "Stalin's Talks", "Liu Shao-Chi's Training in Discipline of the Organisation", and editorials of the "Freedom News". To acquire basic knowledge of Marxism and Leninism, he recommends "The History of the Russian Communist Party", "The Basis of Leninism" and so on. In fact, I would enjoin members of other political Parties to read some of these books except "Freedom News", because I think it is proscribed, unless you happen to be a subscriber. But I would suggest that those who cannot get these books could probably approach the Barisan Sosialis. But it is not so much that as there are no other non-Communist socialist books recommended in the list of mass reading for members of the organisation.

So first we have the Barisan Sosialis which start off by trying to betray their own Party in an election. Now in six months' time, the Barisan Sosialis have graduated to even higher things. They are prepared to trade Singapore in the interest of the P.KJ. They are getting better and better, Sir, in accepting the Leninist precept:- that is, high treason and betrayal of one's own country is a good test of a good Communist. So yesterday, Sir, the Member for Queenstown kept on saying, "What is all this talk about Communism - the Communist bogey? The Government always brings this in" and so on. Sir,I have quoted what the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis had sworn, before the Red flag and old Stalin. Then let me quote another document. It is a very interesting book. I have a feeling that this book is going to be a very oft-quoted book. We have kept a few copies in the Library. Here again let me quote another document by the adviser to the Barisan, Mr James Puthucheary. This was a statement of political beliefs which was written again in the solitude of a prison. He says:

`When I broke with my political friends in 1951, the full implications were not clear to me, and so to a large extent hung in mid-air as it were. Though I had rejected some of what were considered basic tenets and was critical of Communist regimentation, I was unable to reject Weltenschauung.'

Then he says:

`My return from Communism was not in a straight line.'

I suggest, Sir, that the return to Communism is not as straight either. But it does show that when the Barisan Sosialis says, "What is all this talk about Communism? All this smear is an attempt to confuse the people." Mr James Puthucheary is not one of those people who wrote letters to say that all this talk about Communist machinations is nonsense. But here in this document he says:

`My return from Communism was not in a straight line.'

Let me state here, Sir, that we are not fighting the Communists because they are Communists. We are fighting them because they are actively and conspiratorally resisting what Malayan socialists have always believed in - merger between Singapore and Federation. The day the Communists, the Barisan Sosialis, decided to sabotage merger we took them on. The day they betrayed our candidate in Anson we took them on. Now that the Barisan Sosialis have decided to betray Singapore to the P.K.I., we will take them on definitely, because we have no doubts now that the Barisan Sosialis and their friends are seeking no less than the betrayal of Malaysia.

So let there be no doubt about our non-Communist stand. So long as the Communists fought for things which we all publicly believe in, so long as they fought the colonialists, we were with them. We had no quarrel with them. So long as they fought even as trade unions for the betterment of the workers, we had no grudge with them. But the day they decided to betray their country, to betray the ideals which they said they believe in, that is, Socialism, then we took them on. So we are not fighting the Communists because they are Communists, but because they are actively fighting us and our efforts to create a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. The reason why we are fighting them Js that they are fighting us. They tried to stop things which they had believed in, and to realise things which we have fought for. Once they stand in our way, then we must fight them.

This is the story, Sir, of the conflict that has always occurred between the Communists and the nationalists in every country in Asia which had been colonial and later became independent. There comes a time when they will do this - though the Communists might have joined in the struggle as excellent anti-colonial fighters, under cover that they are not Communists. But once they try to pervert the nationalist aims and bend the nationalists to the Communist aims, then they come a cropper. Therefore, Sir, even in the few short months that the Barisan Sosialis started off - they started with what they called the Barisan Sosialis - they started with the wrong name, a deceptive name. They are not the Barisan Sosialis. It is quite clear not only from what is said in the past, but what is happening today - the worst thing of all - that they have now become stool-pigeons of the P.K.I. It is inevitable, Sir, when once you start a political Party under conditions of betrayal, that is, you betray your own comrades. That is the genesis of the Barisan. And then they try to deceive the people by saying "We are socialists, non-Communists", when in fact they are not. They have proved it today by tying themselves up, getting instructions, and subject to discipline from the P.K.I. As I have said, we have no quarrel as to what the P.K.I. does in Indonesia. That is its business. But when the P.K.I. tries to interfere and intervene in our affairs, then we must hit out at it, and most of all against those who lend themselves to be used as stool-pigeons by foreign Communists.

In this connection, Sir, may I say again that we are fighting not the Indonesian people. We are not concerned with them because so far as we know, the Indonesian people as such have made it quite clear that as far as Malaysia is concerned, they have no objection. The moment Malaysia was announced, Dr Subandrio, the Foreign Minister, said, "Yes, as far as Indonesia is concerned, we have no objection to Malaysia. It is a matter for the peoples of the Malaysian territories to decide." So far their stand has been intractable. To save the Barisan Sosialis or merely because the Barisan Sosialis are in great difficulty - they have looked to the P.K.I., whatever their reasons are. Once they embark upon what is, to quote Lenin again, high treason, then the people of Malaysia, the people of Singapore, the people of the Federation, will have no doubt of their attitude towards the Barisan Sosialis.

May I, therefore, Sir, make one final quotation before I end my speech, I will quote again from the adviser of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr James Puthucheary. He had this to say:

The Communists by infiltrating into open organisations have helped in weakening them. Their activities justified the creation of these powers, [that is, the Emergency powers] their policy of infiltration justified the use of these powers against open organisations.

This I think is the greatest damage the Communists arc doing to the country. They have failed to provide answers [This is most important. This is a man who has returned from Communism. He is giving his views.] They [that is, the Communists] have failed to provide answers to the country's problems and they continue to prevent others from providing alternative answers.'

That is an indictment against the Communists. They cannot provide the answers. But that is all right. But when they prevent others from providing alternative answers, "They have unwittingly" - this is very important; this was written in 1957 and it is true today of the Barisan Sosialis - "They have unwittingly become allies of the long-term aims of the Colonial government and Right-wing politicians." We notice, Sir, that since its early days the Barisan Sosialis had to run to Eden Hall to do a deal. Though they talk about anti-colonialism and so on, they are prepared, in such a situation, to do a deed with anybody else. First, the colonialist - to stamp out nationalism. Now the foreign Communists - to stamp out nationalism. On the basis of that analysis, Sir, Mr James Puthucheary, presently an adviser to the Barisan Sosialis, gave this advice - and very good advice too:

`The task of the social democrat seems insuperable. But for any solution it is necessary that Communists inside and outside the open organisations have to be fought and at the same time an even greater fight has to be waged against colonialism and its supporters.'

Today, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, the Communists, are the biggest supporters of the retention of British rule in the Borneo territories, because by breaking up Malaysia, you leave no alternative for the people but to carry on under British rule, both in Singapore and in the Borneo territories. So therefore he says, Sir:

`Not to fight the Communists would be to abdicate the right to help the country to, solve her political and economic problems, to watch helplessly as the country moves to a civil war.'

That is the considered view of Mr James Puthucheary, a man who has returned from Communism. And writing about the Communists he knew, his injunction was, "Not to fight the Communists would be to abdicate the right to help the country to solve her political and economic problems, to watch helplessly as the country moves to a civil war."

The thesis is that we are fighting for a Malaysia to help solve the problems of 10 million people, because we see no way out to ensure that the 10 million people become free, because Malaysia automatically ensures the departure of British rule from this territory, because automatically sovereignty is transferred to the Malaysian States; the British pull out, the new Malaysia States come in. That is the only practical solution that we know of to ensure the livelihood of 10 million ordinary people. As Mr James Puthucheary says, the Communists, even though they cannot provide the solution, will prevent others from providing the solution and he says in that condition a good social democrat and a good nationalist must fight the Communists. I say the time has come when the Barisan Sosialis must be prepared, as other Communists in Africa and Asia are prepared, to fight the nationalists, and in the long run the nationalists must win.

6.01 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the Minister for Culture speak for 2½ hours, I feel that I was hearing the Voice of America for 2½ hours.

Mr Rajaratnam: Aidit.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): But I must congratulate the Minister for Culture on being able to make such a lengthy speech of such a frank nature. The lengthy speech of the Minister for Culture, compared with the Four-Year Souvenir of the P.A.P., all the more reflects the P.A.P. political philosophy and policy thoroughly. It shows more clearly here than the Four-Year Souvenir issue of the P.A.P. His speech enables everyone to see more clearly the true nature and colour of the so-called true spirit of the so-called nationalists and socialists. It will enable us to know their true intention. The whole speech of the Minister for Culture can be said to be a nonsensical piece which is devoid of any meaning. Afterwards, I will deal with the arguments he advanced. They were very nonsensical indeed.

Let me now reply to the two most important allegations made against us by the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past two days, when debating the question of Malaysia, we have seen that the Ministers of the P.A.P. and the Assemblymen of the P.A.P. seem to be very elated. They think that they have found two strong points to be used as weapons to deal with us. They think they can crash the heads of the Barisan Sosialis. The two arguments which they cherish as very strong weapons against us are simply this: First, they say the Barisan Sosialis support Indonesia's move to liberate West Irian from the Dutch colonialists. Therefore, they argue that the Barisan Sosialis have no reason to oppose the Tunku in liberating the three Bornean territories and Singapore from British rule. Secondly, they say that the Central Executive Committee of the Indonesian Communist Party last year approved a resolution condemning and opposing the Greater Malaysia Plan. The Barisan Sosialis today are also opposed to the Greater Malaysia Plan. Therefore, the P.A.P. say that the Barisan Sosialis' opposition to the Greater Malaysia Plan is complying with the directives of the Communists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us examine the first allegation levelled at us by the P.A.P. The P.A.P. say that the Barisan Sosialis are -

Mr Rajaratnam: Dutchmen.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): - Dutchmen. The P.A.P. say that the Dutch propose to let the Papuans in West Irian have self-determination and, at the same time, they say the Barisan Sosialis also stress the point that the three Bornean territories should be given the right of self-determination. Therefore, they argue that the Barisan Sosialis' attitude towards the three Bornean territories is just like the attitude of the Dutch towards West Irian. In fact, the kind of self-determination right which is being discussed now is actually very different from that. There is some fundamental difference. Here are two aspects of the difference. Firstly, it is imposed from the top, as though it is a kind of charity executed from top to bottom. Another type is from the bottom to the top. It is a kind of request expressed from below to the top. It has to be attained through some kind of struggle. It has to be fought for. The Dutch want to give the Papuans the so-called right of self-determination. The intention is really to give the right of self-determination to the puppets of the Dutch, namely, the pro-colonialists. But the peoples of the three Bornean territories demand constitutional advance. They are against British colonial rule. Mr Speaker, Sir, this right of self-determination is just like a knife. The Dutch want to hand over this knife to the Papuans who are their puppets in order to cut off their relationship with Indonesia. They intend to give it to their puppets in West Irian. But we of the Barisan Sosialis demand that the knife should be handed over to the people of the three Bornean territories in order to cut off any control that is imposed on them by the British colonialists. Therefore, on the question of self-determination, the stand of the Barisan Sosialis has never been contradictory. It has always been consistent.

The demand by the Indonesians to liberate West Irian and the question of Malaysia are different in nature too. Indonesia wants to liberate West Irian from the Dutch colonialists. The purpose is to ensure that West Irian will not become a military base of the Western colonialists in Asia. It is also to ensure that the Papuans and the indigenous people there will become equal citizens of the Indonesian Republic.

But what about the Malaysia Plan? According to the present Malaysia Plan, the result of it will be that it will not at all affect the British interests militarily and economically. According to what has been disclosed by the Tunku, the realisation of this Malaysia Plan will mean the extension of the present defence agreement between Malaya and the United Kingdom. Therefore, under these circumstances, the United Kingdom, as a member of S.E.A.T.O., will have the right to use the base here. At the same time, another result of this Malaysia Plan will be that that the people in this area will be affected in that they will not become members of an independent nation.

Now these are the two fundamental differences between Indonesia's liberation of West Irian and Malaysia. We have all seen how, on the question of Indonesia's claim for West Irian, Western countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and America have taken the same unfriendly attitude towards Indonesia. These Western powers unanimously support the Malaysia Plan. From this we can see that this so-called Malaysia Plan must be a new kind of camouflage to cover up the real intention of the colonialists, which is the continuance of their colonial rule. These Western colonial powers will have to adopt some new facade because, at the present time, the anti-colonial voices have been so very loud and strong and they have no other alternative. The General Assembly of the United Nations has also approved a resolution appealing for the discontinuation of colonial rule. As a result of such a resolution, the position of the Western powers will become untenable if they continue with their old rule.

There is another weapon used by the P.A.P. They say that our stand is the same as that of the Indonesian Communists. Mr Speaker, the question is not one as to what opinion the Communists have. Everyone has eyes to see for himself. The Communists have also eyes to see for themselves. What the Communists can see, can the others not see too? Must we deny the fact if the Communists tell people what they have seen? Does it mean that by doing so it is democracy? Are the P.A.P. advancing such an argument? Everyone needs to know the truth. We must not reject as false what the Communists say of certain things.

The Prime Minister has said in this House that what is in the interest of the people may also be advantageous to the Communists. Therefore, the approach to the question of Malaysia cannot be based on the argument that if the Communists oppose this Plan, others must not oppose it too.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the factors which have helped us come to a decision oil Malaysia are not Communist-inspired. But the interests of the millions of people in this area have led us to the present position on this Malaysia Plan. We of the Barisan Sosialis have spent a lot of time pointing out to this House that we cannot accept the White Paper merger proposals. We have said that they are not in the interest of the people of Singapore. In the view of the people of Singapore, the arrangement of this so-called Malaysia is just the same kind of arrangement as set out in the White Paper merger proposals. The Malaysia Plan also does not provide for equal rights to the citizens of Singapore. It also restricts the freedom of the people in travelling. Furthermore, it is detrimental to the development of the socialist forces.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I firmly believe that the people of Singapore and the three Bornean territories fear the Malaysia Plan not because they have heard the arguments of the Communists. There are many reasons which have led them to harbour fears and suspicions in respect of this Malaysia Plan. One of their worries is this: that after the establishment of Malaysia, there is the fear that a large number of the people of Singapore will migrate to the other territories. They fear that after the realisation of Malaysia their present economic interest will meet with more intense competition from other territories. They are also worried that the freedom of religious beliefs will be restricted. There is the further fear that they may be at a disadvantage on the question of employment in the civil service. There is also the fear that they may not have adequate representation in the Central Parliament. These fears exist because of the present living conditions of the people of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya and the prevailing unemployment situation in these two territories.

There are further reasons why they are worried about this Malaysia Plan. For instance, When the Tunku went to London to discuss this Plan with Mr Macmillan, he disclosed to the reporters that the first purpose of this Plan was to deal with the Communists. So it is not in the interest of the people in this area to shake off the rule of the colonialists.

The Tunku also said in London that if in future the British wanted Labuan, in North Borneo, they could use it as a military base. From this you can see that even before the Tunku had the right to control the three Borneo territories, he had already promised that Labuan would be handed over to the British for use as a military base. When the people heard this, they could not help but have suspicions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that today no one is opposed to the concept of Malaysia. The question is: what are the contents of the Malaysia plan? What is its form? What steps should be taken to approach this plan and what kind of arrangement should be taken in respect of time? According to present indications, the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya want to rush through this plan, and this will give cause for the people to have some doubts as to the interests of this plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the strongest Party in Sarawak is the Sarawak United People's Party. On 8th July, 1961, they issued a brief announcement saying that any question which proposes unification with Malaya should be decided upon only after Sarawak has decided on its own future and after it has attained independence. We have heard of a political Party called the White Kalimantan People's Party. On 30th November, 1961, this Party cabled to London to protest against the Tunku's discussion with Mr Macmillan on the question of Malaysia. I have to stress here that the leader of this Party which issued this protest is one who has been described by our Prime Minister as a non-Communist nationalist.

Mr Speaker, during these two days of debate we have heard many things about the duties of a socialist. We have also heard the arguments propounded on the keen desire of the socialists and certain other kind-hearted people to rescue the peoples of these territories from British colonial rule. Let me ask these so-called socialists: why do they not want to let the three Borneo territories be united together, and be an independent political unit? Why do they not accept such a concept? Why do they not agree to the request to let the three Borneo territories first get independence? Why cannot they let the three territories be united together as one independent unit and so come out of colonial rule before talking about Malaysia with them? I am surprised, and I feel strange, that these so-called socialists should behave like elder brothers rushing forward to protect the peoples of the three Borneo territories, scrambling to liberate them and force them to adopt the same way of life as we have now.

To talk blindly about the safeguards of the rights of the people of the three Borneo territories is useless. Socialists must use concrete facts and examples to attract people to their side. If socialists in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya can raise the standard of living of the peoples of these two territories to such a level as that existing in Elysium, then I believe the peoples in the three Borneo territories would be very glad to join in the Malaysia plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today the present important task of a true nationalist and a true socialist is not just to see the expansion of his own territory, but to concentrate his strength to ensure that in his own country the workers and farmers can be liberated from exploitation by foreign capitalists and to enable his own country to stand firm as an independent self-governing country, in the spirit of the Afro-Asian countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has said that many Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis do not quite understand what is Communism. But on the topic of socialism, we have never heard of such a socialist argument as that small nations can never exist by themselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I reply to certain arguments put forward by the Minister for Culture, I will say something about the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. We in the Barisan Sosialis cannot support this amendment to the motion. We are not opposed to the concept of Greater Malaysia; neither are we opposed to such a plan. But we oppose because the Tunku, in moving his motion in the Federal Parliament, said clearly that he could not accept Singapore into the Federation of Malaya - if it meant giving Federal citizenship rights to the people of Singapore. He said clearly that he could only accept Singapore into the Federation as a partner. If the Tunku, in moving his motion, did not make such clear statement, then we would be very much prepared to support what he said, a Malaysian concept. I said just now that we are of the opinion that the Greater Malaysia Plan is after all the same as the merger proposals contained in the White Paper. So we feel that if, on the one hand, we refused this White Paper and, on the other hand, accepted the Greater Malaysia Plan, it would create a lot of confusion. Otherwise it would mean that we are not sincere in safeguarding the interest of the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. like to talk very much about a mandate. But they have forgotten that on the question of Greater Malaysia, we have no such thing as a mandate from the people of Singapore. If they are so very much concerned and pay so much attention to the question of a mandate from the people, then they should not act in an arbitrary manner and make decisions for the people of Singapore on their own.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Culture mentioned two good points in his speech. First, he asked the people of Singapore why there should be a Malaysia plan; and if there were no Malaysia, what would happen to them? Well, we appeal to the people of Singapore to think very carefully about this question. They must not forget that it has been posed by the P.A.P. itself. If the people can visualise the position in which the P.A.P. will be placed in the absence of Malaysia, then they will understand why the P.A.P. is today very interested, enthusiastic but worried about Malaysia. If the people can think about this question, then they will be able to find a correct answer.

The Minister for Culture in his speech just now and the Minister for Home Affairs in his speech yesterday stressed the recent talk given by the Prime Minister of England, Mr Macmillan, to the people of England. The U.K. Prime Minister said to his own people that Britain had become a third-class power. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a fact. Mr Macmillan himself admitted it. But when he said this, it did not mean that Britain was prepared to give up its interest in colonial countries. He said such things in order to encourage and to arouse the vigilance of the British people and instil in them greater efforts and that they should adopt more cunning means to deal with the world situation today. Mr Macmillan said this not only with a view to encouraging his own people to accept and face the challenge of Communism, but also with a view to reminding his own people of the economic rivalry coming from America, Japan and other North European countries. And so to explain the words of Mr Macmillan as an automatic and voluntary withdrawal of the colonial influence is tantamount to deceiving the people and the world on behalf of the British colonialists.

The Minister for Culture just now also touched upon certain strange theories. According to his theory, small countries will not be able to survive. They will not be able to have a stable currency. If his theory is accepted, then I think countries such as Switzerland and Belgium, should not have existed at all. They should better have been merged with Germany or America. This kind of argument does not hold water. I think this kind of argument is similar to the argument used by Hitler and the Fascist. I hope very sincerely that I will be able to hear from the Minister for Finance later on. I hope he will reply from the economic point of view in the political analysis as to how and why a big country with large tracts of land should not have any economic problems. His colleague, the Minister for Culture, seems to be telling us that if the three Borneo territories can be merged and united with Singapore and Malaya, then there will be every chance of prosperity and everything will be all right. But the fact remains that even if the Malaysia plan materialises, what about the resources, the area of land and the population? Well, all this taken together will not be bigger than America, India or Australia. So I hope the Minister for Finance will be able to enlighten us as to why in these big countries which are full of natural resources, there is still in existence a very great unemployment problem. There are still in existence economic problems. Why? Why is that people in these countries are not able to live in paradise?

Mr Rajaratnam: It is not a Communist country!

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Just now, the Minister for Culture said a great deal with only one aim. That is, he tried to prove to the Western powers and to the world that he was a cleverer man than Lim Yew Hock; and that he was a stronger hero than Lim Yew Hock. He tried to show to them that if they want to make a choice between the P.A.P. and Lim Yew Hock, then they had better choose the P.A.P. because their theories are better than those of Lim Yew Hock. But unfortunately, -

Mr Speaker: Order. And who is this man Lim Yew Hock?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am referring to the Member for Cairnhill.

The Prime Minister: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member gives way. The Member is not giving way.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret I am not able to hear the views of our nationalists and socialists on the Malaysia arrangements, especially in regard to inequality and other conditions which are not mentioned by them. The Members opposite are coming forward to claim that they are nationalist heroes. This reminds me of the situation in which the Member for Cairnhill found himself when he returned from the United Kingdom. He had asked somebody to give him a shield and a plaque describing him as a nationalist hero. Now we see what has happened to the so-called national hero. We have every confidence that the people opposite me will follow their predecessors, the so-called national heroes!

6.59 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the historian Gibbon, history is a chronicle of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of men. Not everyone will accept this dictum of Gibbon as true of all history of all mankind. But in certain countries and at certain times, the conduct of certain men is such as to lend support to Gibbon's definition of history. I believe it applies to our own country at the present time and in regard to the conduct of certain people. The people I have in mind are none other than the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis; and the episodes which I will relate concern their sayings and actions in regard to the Greater Malaysia Plan. I propose to show what crimes the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis were prepared to commit to fight Malaysia, their folly in so doing and the misfortunes that await them now that they had done so.

This house has been treated, in this debate on Malaysia, to the usual Barisan Sosialis fare of wilful misrepresentation of truths, large servings of half-truths generously spiced with downright untruths. But I am not concerned with the tracking down of each and everyone of these misrepresentations. To do so would be a monumental task. Nor shall I dwell at length on the general or specific arguments Which they have put forward. My colleagues will deal with them in due course.

I wish to go behind the facade of the arguments which they have put forward, hut which they do not really believe in, and probe into the real motivations which have led them to oppose both merger and Malaysia.

My narrative begins on Saturday, 27th of May, when the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya addressed the Foreign Correspondents Association in Singapore. He delivered a lengthy speech in which he described some of the problems and achievements of the Federation Government since Merdeka. But there were two significant passages in his speech. These passages were both brief. The first was a friendly reference to Singapore made in such a way as to give hopes for the first time that the Federation Government was prepared to take in Singapore in a merger. Prophetically, the Tunku seemed to have foreseen trouble with the Communists over merger because it demanded a loyalty to the Malayan way of life. May I quote the first significant passage of the Tunku's statement (Sunday Times, 28th May):

`For us in Malaya, and I include Singapore in my remarks, loyalty to the Malayan ideal of the way of life is fundamental. There can be no half-way house in loyalty. No one ever becomes happy by trying to make the best of two worlds. People who think they are trying to ensure the future by trying to be friendly with the communists on the one hand and with the Governments of Federation and Singapore on the other, are sure to end up losing one way or the other.'

The second passage consists of two sentences. But it is these two sentences which gave birth to Malaysia not merely as a theoretical concept but as a practical proposition. May I read the second passage. The Tunku said:

`Sooner or later she (the Federation of Malaya) should have an understanding with Britain and the peoples of the territories of Singapore, Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak. It is premature for me to say now how this closer understanding can be brought about, but it is inevitable that they should look ahead to this objective and think of a plan whereby these territories can be brought closer together in political and economic cooperation.'

That was all the Tunku said on Malaysia, but it set in train a series of events which were to have profound and far-reaching consequences. The Tunku's proposal on Malaysia, tentative though it was at that time, was one of the principal factors that led to the open break between the Communists and the non-Communists in the P.A.P.

The Tunku spoke on the 27th May, some 2½ weeks before nomination day for the Anson by-election. The next development was a statement signed by six trade union leaders in the Communist open front organisation headed by Mr Lim Ching Siong. The statement was published on the 3rd June. By that time, general interest in Malaysia had been aroused not only in Singapore but in all five territories.

The statement of these six trade union leaders, if taken at its face value, was unexceptionable. It pledged the support of the unions in the by-election for the P.A.P. on the grounds of its anti-colonial record. It then went on to say that the six leaders were convinced that the most practical solution to the present political setbacks lies in the new constitution. They further said and here I am quoting the actual words as recorded in the Straits Times, 3rd of June: "What we are clamouring for this time is a genuinely full internal self-government not only in name but also in fact. A popularly elected Government must exercise all rights over matters of internal security. The Internal Security Council must be abolished." There was absolutely no reference to Malaysia, although Malaysia was then the burning political topic of the day.

Coming as it did on the eve of a critical by-election, the statement was of grave importance. We can discount its face value but we must probe into its inner meaning. When Malaysia was the main issue of the day the silence on this subject was significant. It was obvious that the message was intended to be conveyed to the P.A.P. non-Communist group that the condition of the support which Mr Lim Ching Siong and his trade unions were prepared to give to the P.A.P. was that we must ignore Malaysia as an issue in the by-election, instead we should aim for internal self-government as the next stage of our constitutional development with the local Government having powers over internal security. In plain words, what the Communists had told us was simply this: "Do not support Malaysia or else we shall kick your teeth down your throat."

The P.A.P. took some time to ponder over the real meaning of the statement. It became clear to us that on this issue, if both sides maintain their respective stands, there must eventually be a parting of ways. The Communists were clearly not interested in merger or Malaysia because they feared that a strong central government would take action to curb them. They wanted Singapore to be isolated under conditions which would permit them to develop it into a Communist stronghold in South-East Asia.

On the 9th June the Deputy Prime Minister declared the stand of the P.A.P. on this issue. He said that in the 1963 constitutional talks, we intended to seek independence through merger under conditions which would give Singapore autonomy in education and labour. He further indicated that if Malaysia were to speed up merger, then the P.A.P. would support it in principle. In plain language, the reply we gave to the Communists was, in effect, "you chaps can take a running jump off Clifford Pier."

So nomination day, the 10th June, came around with the two sides having taken positions - the P.A.P. for independence through merger within Malaysia if need be; the Communists for the continuation of colonialism in Singapore provided the British were prepared to relinquish control over internal security.

On the 24th June, Mr Lim Ching Siong wrote a letter to the Straits Times and underlined his original point. He said and I quote from the Straits Times, 24th June, page 10;

`Colonialism makes itself felt in Singapore via the Internal Security Council. We have found it necessary to point the way ahead more concretely by our claim for the abolition of the Internal Security Council and the achievement of full Internal self-government.'

So, there are no two ways about it, Mr Speaker, Sir, The P.A.P. won the elections in 1959, and the main political platform was that we shall attempt to achieve independence through merger as the next constitutional step for Singapore. In the by-election the Communists tried to pressure us into going back on the word that we had given, to the electorate and instead have a more limited target as the next constitutional step.

As the by-election progressed (the two sides having taken their respective positions) a series of strange events occurred in Singapore. On the 26th June three British Governors flew in from the Borneo territories. The ostensible purpose of their visit was stated to be a discussion over the Malaysia proposals. After three or four days, the Governors departed as ostentatiously as they had arrived. By a coincidence, Tunku Abdul Rahman paid a visit to the Borneo territories at about this time. A few days later the Earl of Selkirk left Singapore, ostensibly for London to discuss the Malaysia proposals with Cabinet Ministers in London. But I have heard since, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Earl of Selkirk never went much further than Rangoon. Be that as it may, these ostentatious movements of the British pro-consuls had the effect that the British intended. The Communists became convinced that agreement had been reached between the Governments of Singapore, the Federation and Great Britain over Malaysia. They became visibly more and more agitated as the days passed by. This agitation spread to former Parliamentary Secretaries of the Government who have now defected to the Barisan Sosialis and who were then under very heavy pressure from Communist groups.

The former Parliamentary Secretaries implored their Ministers to let them into the secret. They were convinced that the Malaysia Plan had been worked out in detail and that the agreement had been signed, sealed and delivered. Each time they entered the office of a Minister, they would look somewhat suspiciously at his safe obviously wondering whether the secret document was locked up there.

In the meantime, events hotted up outside. On the 8th of July, the General Employees Union - the largest of the Communist open front trade unions - announced its full agreement and support for the stand of the six trade unionists led by Mr Lim Ching Siong in their demand for a genuinely complete internal self-government and the abolition of the Internal Security Council. There was to be no nonsense about merger or Malaysia. The statement also said that this minimum demand should be obtained at the 1963 constitutional talks in London between Great Britain and Singapore, and when the time is ripe and the conditions conducive, then we should advance another step to achieve merger. No definition of what is meant by "when the time is ripe and the conditions conducive" was attempted in the statement, but having heard the exposition of my colleague, the Minister for Culture, on Communist double-talk, I think we can attempt a shrewd guess as to exactly what they mean by these words.

Now, Sir, until then, the Communists and the non-Communists in the P.A.P. had avoided a frontal clash. The Communist had hitherto only withdrawn support from the P.A.P. in the Anson by-election. But on the 11th of July, the long-delayed head-on collision took place and this occurred, of all places, at the University of Malaya. The Student Socialist Club held a forum on merger which was distinguished by bitter recrimination between S. Woodhull on the side of the Communists and Mr Devan Nair speaking for the non-Communists of the P.A.P. I do not wish to go into the details of that forum as the subject of the debate was merger and not Malaysia.

After this open clash, the Communists decided to intervene in a big way to fight the P.A.P. at Anson. They had been alarmed that their withdrawal of support from the P.A.P. and their indirect attack on the policies of the Government did not have the effect that they wanted. They decided then that whatever the cost they must ensure the defeat of the P.A.P. candidate who was one of their colleagues in the trade union movement and a former Chairman of the T.U.C. Central Council of which the six leaders were members. So on the 14th of July, six trade unionists enlarged the issue and laid great emphasis on four points which they had earlier mentioned in the course of the Anson by-election. These four points were: (1) release all political detainees immediately; (2) scrap the Internal Security Council and institute full internal self-government; (3) assist in a speedy reunification of the trade union movement and grant citizenship and franchise to those loyal to the anti-colonial struggle; and (4) allow freedom of Press, speech, assembly, etc. At the same time, eight P.A.P. Assemblymen were induced to commit an act of gross treachery and betrayal. They sent a letter to the Party Chairman asking that a conference of Party branches be held to discuss certain matters. There was nothing wrong in this if they really believed what they stated, that is, there was inadequate consultation between the leadership and the rank and file in the Party. But these eight Assemblymen, beaded by the Member for Queenstown, arranged to get the widest publicity for this letter two days before polling day. They released it to the Press. Their intention was clear. Just two days before polling day, they deliberately launched this treacherous assault on the Party clearly in the hope and expectation that it would have an adverse effect on our chances in the Anson by-election. There is a significant passage in this letter which reads as follows:

`We agree with the six trade union members in their advocacy of the four minimum anti-colonial measures and the minimum constitutional demand for genuinely full internal self-government by 1963.'

This final act of betrayal had the effect that was intended. The candidate met with defeat though by a poor margin. The number of voters who were confused by this treachery and abstained from voting was three times the margin of defeat.

The Communists had in the meantime launched an all-out assault on the organisation of the P.A.P. Assemblymen were approached and pressured into denouncing the Party and in particular the Party leadership. Organising Secretaries became special targets of pressure and intimidation. Branch Committee members were similarly worked on. Large numbers of them succumbed to pressure, persuation or intimidation. The fortunes of the Party were then at the lowest ebb in its history. It had suffered in two critical by-elections. The Party organisation was in a state of shambles due to the defection of most of its Organising Secretaries and substantial numbers of its Branch Committees. The loyalty of many Assemblymen and Parliamentary Secretaries could not be counted upon. The Communists had made good their threat to deliver a kick in the teeth.

Now, Sir, by all accounts, the Government should have fallen and general elections taken place, which was the object of this whole operation. And accordingly, three days after polling day, we find the great anti-colonial heroes - Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, S. Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan and J. J. Puthucheary - going to Eden Hall to seek an interview with the Earl of Selkirk. Doubtless they were now fully convinced that the P.A.P. Government had been dealt a mortal blow and they were ready to take over the reins of Government. The famous Eden Hall tea-party was not the first occasion on which these great anti-colonialists exchanged views and drank tea with representatives of the British Raj. The Prime Minister has already given an account of how over a period of time the officials of the U.K. Commission had been cultivating these people. He also explained that the British on their part wanted the Communists to believe that they can take over power in Singapore provided they play the game constitutionally and provided they leave the military bases alone. In the British calculation, once the Communists believed it, they would then be bold enough to leave the protecting wing of the P.A.P. and launch out on their own, if necessary, in conflict with the P.A.P., which they were confident of scrubbing out. Now the British had sensed the conflict of policy and views of these two groups - the non-Communists and the Communists in the P.A.P. over Malaysia. They decided to exploit this conflict to the maximum and in so doing they depended on the suspicious nature of the Communists and their fear of Greater Malaysia. Viewing matters in retrospect, I am led to the conclusion that the ostentatious arrivals and departures of Governors and High Commissioners staged during the Anson by-election was merely a British ruse to draw out the Communists. Certainly in my discussions with Ministers of the Government of the Federation of Malaya, I am unable to see any reference to what these Governors had discussed, the policy they had defined, or even any clarification of what happened during that period.

Now the Communists had foolishly allowed themselves to be deceived into believing that Malaysia was already at hand and that all arrangements had been fixed. And they were going to be fixed. As a result of this belief, they went berserk. And so on 18th July they saw the British Supremo at Eden Hall, doubtless to find out what the next step should be, now that they thought that the P.A.P. had been delivered a knockout punch. Sir, unfortunately for them the non-Communist P.A.P., whom they had derided as soft and petty bourgeois, possessed greater staying powers than they had suspected. Far from collapsing, we decided to stand up and slug it out with them.

When we pondered over the statements of the Trade Union Six of 3rd June, we had decided that should there be a parting of ways between the Communists and the non-Communists in the Party, then the issue of Malaysia and merger was from our point of view the best possible one on which to part company. All genuine nationalists want to see the growth of a great united prosperous nation with a large population and extensive national resources. Malaysia lends itself naturally as an independent sucessor State to the former British Empire in this part of the world. For the Communists to break with us on this issue was to force them eventually into a position of isolation from the Malayan nationalist movement. Their pretensions to be national revolutionary leaders would then be exposed. I shall discuss later the absurd and contradictory position to which the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis have been reduced in opposing Malaysia. Now, when the Communists found that they had failed to capture and destroy the Party, and failed to topple the Government, they had no alternative but to group themselves and their sympathisers together in a separate Party named the Barisan Sosialis, or Socialist Front. A more appropriate name, of course, is Barisan Komunis, or Communist Front.

The Communists then realised that in opposing merger and Malaysia, they had made a serious political blunder. So they tried to wriggle out of the position by pretending that they wanted merger. But the conditions which they laid down for merger were carefully calculated to be such that they were unacceptable to the Federation Government, and known to be unacceptable to the Federation Government by the Communists who proposed them.

As regards Malaysia, it was during Anson that they stated that Malaysia was not part of the P.A.P. election programme, and we therefore had no business to give it support. Subsequently even on Malaysia they changed their stand. On 30th August the Barisan Sosialis issued a statement clarifying the position. The statement was signed by the Chairman. It is a document of considerable importance. I intend to read a fairly lengthy quotation from the statement as published in the Straits Times of 30th August. On page 18, the Barisan Sosialis stated:

`The way ahead for real reunification was in one of two directions:

1. An immediate full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State, like Penang or Malacca.

2. As an autonomous unit within a confederation with Borneo territories coming in when possible.

Dealing with Malaysia, the statement said that as a stage to eventual merger, Barisan Sosialis would accept a constitutional arrangement for a confederation within which Singapore would be an autonomous unit, with full autonomy in internal matters, including internal security, and conceding by treaty the fields of external affairs and defence to the Federation Government.

The administrative and constitutional difficulties in the way of achieving merger or confederation may cause some delay, but while this was going on a great anti-colonial struggle must be launched to abolish the Internal Security Council and wrest the right of self-determination from the colonial power by 1963.'

In other words, a great anti-colonial struggle must be launched in order to ensure that Singapore remains a colony by 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us ponder on the implications of this statement. I will not deal with the section on merger with the Federation, as this has already been debated at length in this Chamber. On Malaysia the Barisan Sosialis accepted the idea of Malaysia provided: the Constitution of Malaysia was a loose one, namely, a confederation. As an aside, I must say and I must confess with some surprise, that none of the Barisan Sosialis speakers seem to have remembered this important policy statement which they issued last August. Within this confederation Singapore would be an autonomous unit. Here again the familiar refrain occurs - an autonomous unit with full autonomy in internal matters including internal security. But more important, the Barisan did not regard this confederation with the Borneo territories as a matter of any urgency. There was no need to hurry. "What we must do," according to this statement, "was to have internal self-government with the abolition of the Internal Security Council." So once again they turned to their first love. In fact, the only love, when we come to that, is a semi-colonial Singapore.

Internal security has clearly become an obsession with the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis. They seem to be entranced and hypnotized by this subject. Of course, everybody knows that for them this is the real heart of the matter. They are not worried about citizenship or labour or education, though they pretend to be so. They are prepared to drop labour and education, ditch the workers and the Chinese schools any time in exchange for internal security in the hope that this will save their own skin. Non-Communist socialists who do not depend on support of the Communists and their open front organisations for political power have a clear conscience in these matters. They are not troubled by special powers which the Government must have in security matters, for they know that these are intended to deal with Communist subversion, not with democratic socialism.

Now, what is the net result that the Communists have achieved as a result of their policy and stand on Malaysia? As I have demostrated conclusively, it was motivated purely by fear over internal security matters. The first result is their breakway from the P.A.P. When they thought that Malaysia was already in the bag, they came to the conclusion that the only way to stop it was to break the Government. Then they would take over the reins of Government and undo the whole arrangement on Malaysia.

The first result of this policy was the open break with the non-Communist Left. We of the non-Communist Left felt, even in our moments of dire anxiety after Anson, profoundly relieved at their departure from our ranks over a dispute on a plainly nationalist issue. While they are attempting to portray the P.A.P. Government as reactionary, pro-colonial, and singularly hostile towards them, they must have realised that during the period that they were in partnership with us, they were able to consolidate their position in the trade union field and in rural and cultural organisations. We as a non-Communist government naturally had to take certain safeguards to ensure that their consolidation was not too solid and their expansion not too rapid. But I would say that under the P.A.P. they had it so good. They had no fear of being repressed. Now that they have left us, they must fend for themselves and face the future themselves.

The second result is their political isolation in all national issues, of which the issue of Malaysia is an outstanding example. In their desperation to seek cover, the Communists have even attempted to make use of non-political Right-wing organisations, such as the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Chinese guilds and clans' associations. En this effort they have failed dismally. I think I have briefly dwelt on this subject in this House on a previous occasion when I described Round 5 between the Communists and the non-Communists in Singapore.

The third result is that the Communists are placed in a completely false position on the important political issues of the day. Sir, I referred a moment ago to the absurd and contradictory position to which they have been reduced on nationalist issues, such as Malaysia. My colleague, the Minister for Culture, has rightly called them the Dutchmen of Singapore. The Dutch wanted the principle of self-determination to be observed in West Irian as a means of delaying independence for West Irian by the transfer to an independent Indonesian government. In exactly the same way, the Barisan Sosialis wanted the principle of self-determination to be applied in Malaysia in respect of the Borneo territories. We have had that said in so many plain words by their Chairman, the Member for Queenstown. Whereas the people of Singapore and the P.A.P. want independence and merger, the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis have consistently pressed for internal self-government provided that they can save their own skins under a semi-colonial Singapore, and they want to frustrate Malaysia by appealing to the principle of self-determination which they roundly denounced when proposed by the Dutch for West Irian. Do they not understand the absurdity of their position?

How is it that the Communists have allowed themselves to be reduced to such a pathetic state? Students of the history of the Asian revolution would not be surprised at this. This is nothing new and there are parallels in other countries in Asia. May I refer to just one of them? This occurred during World War II in India. When the war broke out in October 1939, the Indian Nationalist leaders headed by Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru opposed India's entry into the war. They stated that this war did not concern them. The Communist Party of India too at that time declared that the war was an imperialist war, that is to say, a war between capitalist countries in a dispute over imperial possessions. Both the nationalists and the Communists in India were locked up as a result of their opposition to the British war effort.

But when the Soviet Union entered the war in 1941, the Indian Communist Party performed an immediate political somersault. The imperialist war became an anti-Fascist war because the Soviet Union, their ideological fatherland, was attacked by Nazi Germany. The Indian Communists were then released from gaol to collaborate with the British Imperial Government in India to support the war effort, while the nationalist leaders remained in gaol. And I am told, Mr Speaker, Sir, by Indian students whom I met in England, that at that time the nationalist leaders in Congress were trying to mount strikes to stop production and injure the British War effort. But the Communist organised strike breakers in a big way to help the Imperial masters and defeat the workers led by the nationalist leaders. The subservience of the National Communist Parties to foreign causes and foreign governments is well known. On Malaysia, it is becoming more apparent now that the stand of the Communist and the stooges in the Barisan Sosialis is dictated not only by the desire for self-preservation, but also by the strategy of Communist Parties abroad. The opposition to Malaysia by our local Communists runs so closely to the policy of the Indonesian Communist Party. The declaration of the P.K.I. (Indonesian Communist Party) on the subject has only been recently published and it deserves the closest study. It is now becoming clear to everyone how close the Barisan Sosialis position on Malaysia follows the declaration of the P.K.I. Is this a coincidence or is it the result of contacts and organisational arrangements between the Communists in Singapore and the Communists in Indonesia? This is a subject that deserves the closest attention. We know for a fact that last month, important members of the Communist front organisations in Singapore, including the Vice Chairman of Party Rakyat, attended an important political conference in Djakarta, at which leading members of the P.K.I. were present. Doubtless the Singapore Communists had taken advantage of this visit to effect secret connections with the P.K.I. We cannot, of course, expect them to admit this and disclose the details. Nevertheless, we should be on the look-out for influences from abroad on the political line of the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis.

Let me sum up my arguments. What I am saying amounts to this. The Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis and other Communists open front organisations have only one political objective in the recent past and at the present moment, and that is to avoid security action which they fear and expect would be taken against them after merger of Malaysia. To secure this objective, they are prepared to see the continuation of colonial rule in Singapore, provided the Internal Security Council is abolished. To this end they sought the counsel of the U.K. Commission, who egged them on in their mad adventure. During the Anson by-election, they were panicked into the belief that Malaysia had all been buttoned up. This belief, which in the event turned out to be a false alarm, caused them to run amok and break away from the P.A.P. This has resulted in their fully exposed and isolated position today and the very dangers which they sought to escape from now looms larger and more immediate than before. Truly we can agree with Gibbon that in this instance the crimes which they have perpetuated - crimes of treachery and betrayal of their comrades as a result of their folly - will bring upon themselves misfortunes of their own making.

7.55 p.m.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we see that the P.A.P. Government is adopting the same tactics and same propaganda tactics of the S.P.A. In 1959, before the general elections, the Lim Yew Hock Government tried to boost up its prestige by holding a grand exposition at Kallang Park. It was quite obvious that the former Chief Minister then hoped that with all the lights and splendour of the exposition the people would be misled into believing that everything was fine under the S.P.A. Government. Today we see the P.A.P. putting up grand concerts on Chinese New Year Eve in order to celebrate the P.A.P.'s Malaysia scheme. Sir, we see the same amount of light and splendour now as during the S.P.A. exposition. Evidently the P.A.P. hopes that by having this exposition, the so-called Malaysia scheme, the people will be misled. The P.A.P. Government think that they can mislead the people into believing that their future will be as bright as the decorations being put up for the so-called Malaysia concert. It will enable the P.A.P. propaganda to misrepresent anyone who goes to see the lights as showing support for their Malaysia scheme. Sir, the P.A.P. Government think that they can mislead the people into believing that their future will be as bright as the decorations put up for the so-called Malaysia concert. But just as the artificial lights did not save the S.P.A. Government from their doom, the latest P.A.P. propaganda will not save the P.A.P. Government from being drowned. Our people know well what the sell-out plan means. This sell-out plan is merger or Malaysia. The people of Singapore know that their future under the P.A.P.'s so-called merger or Malaysia will be as dark as the padang itself when the concert lights are switched off. The people see in the P.A.P. Malaysia plan as something good to look at but not good to eat. Sir, this Malaysia plan turns out to be nothing but a piece of white paper on which the desperate P.A.P. politicians wish to sign away the interest of the people in order to save their own future.

Sir, as my Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, said yesterday, we must not fall into the P.A.P. propaganda trap of crying high and low about the principle of Malaysia. The P.A.P. Government wants everybody to be trapped into the so-called principle of Malaysia in order to deceive the people that they believe the P.A.P. Malaysia scheme. It is regrettable that the Workers' Party and the U.P.P. have fallen into the propaganda trap of the P.A.P.

The Prime Minister: You are all lonely!

Mr Teo Hock Guan: They are now helping the P.A.P. to mislead the people into supporting their Malaysia scheme. Mr Speaker. Sir, the Prime Minister was very happy yesterday to see the Member for Anson moving -

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh.