REFERENDUM

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.".

Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode an manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore -".

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Ha, ha!

Mr Speaker: I think the Minister owes an apology to the House for that interruption.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I beg your pardon.

Mr Speaker: The amendment is to insert the following words,

"in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia."

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): On a point of order, Sir, I wish to seek your advice on this, Sir. I am not certain about it. According to the amendment here, it says, "on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification", "mode and manner", Sir. Those are the things which will be discussed in the Referendum Bill which, at the present moment, is sub-judice. Some of our amendments to the Bill are couched in terms to make sure that when a referendum is held, the mode and manner of the referendum will be fixed. Under those circumstances, I would ask your advice whether or not this amendment of the Leader of the House is in order. I think it is not in order because it anticipates the Referendum Bill which is still in Select Committee.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid I have difficulty in following the Member for Queenstown. The words are, "this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya". No detail as to what "the mode and manner" is given. That, as the Member for Queenstown has rightly stated, will eventually emerge from the National Referendum Bill, if so amended in, Select Committee.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: May I make an explanation? Sir, I think the Member for Queenstown has missed the context of the amendment - "the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification". It makes no mention of the mode and manner of the referendum.

Mr Speaker: It is a matter for debate. The amendment is now before the House.

7.40 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: When this motion was printed, I do not think that it could possibly find anybody who would object to it, and I learned with considerable surprise from the seconder of the motion and the supporter of the manoeuvres on the part of certain Members of the Government to persuade him to drop the motion. I could understand why. I see this extraordinary mess which the Deputy Prime Minister has achieved in order to hide the fact that Government, in truth, do not want to give an assurance to the people of Singapore that they will have an honest referendum and that the Government will act in accordance with their wishes. We have now this smokescreen of the Government patting itself on its own back and no doubt having the S.P.A. to pat it too, about welcoming Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. I do not care, Sir, if they pat themselves on the back. I am not interested.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: What about your back?

Mr David Marshall: My back is broad enough to carry and has been broad enough to carry the filth, the spite and the malice that the entire Front Bench have sought to throw upon me. It will survive it and it will outlive them, and I hope one day it will bury them.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is what you think.

Mr David Marshall: Let us go back to this motion. It is with genuine sorrow that I have to speak in tones of anger of this Machiavellian manoeuvre to camouflage the naked intention of the Government, now so obvious that there will be no referendum on the real issue but only on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification. "Do you want the White Paper proposals to come into force at midnight on the 31st of August? Or would you rather have it for breakfast on Christmas Day?" That is, in effect, Sir, their so-called referendum according to this. That is what we are going to have. "Do you prefer to die by drowning? Or would you rather be burnt alive?" The mode and manner of the inevitable reunification. So this is it. This is naked power dictatorship. Sir, at one time it used to irritate me to hear the hollow laughter from the Front Benches. I now accept it as a tribute to the fact that the shaft has hit home, and they squirmed.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No. It was comical. That is why we laughed.

Mr David Marshall: So we are to have a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people, not whether they want the arrangements arrived at, the proposals, according to the Prime Minister, of the Federation and the P.A.P. incorporated in Command Paper 33. No, Sir. The people will not have the opportunity to say whether they want it or not. They are going to be asked the mode and manner of the introduction of this policy, the mode and manner. Sir, you have held - and I must respect your decision - that this is not, at least technically, a negation of my motion which seeks an assurance from this House, a solemn assurance that the people will have an honest opportunity to express their wishes in a referendum before the measures affecting our entire future and affecting our children are brought into force. That is all it sought. That was supposed to be the purpose of the Referendum Bill, that there should be direct democracy, and that this Government, as one last gracious act in an extremely discredited career, should at least for once show some grace and accept the people's will.

Now, Sir, we must recognise that obviously the Referendum Bill was introduced by mistake. It was promised and they had to go through with the promise. But they are going to see that it is so distorted that nothing Machiavelli ever did could equal the fraud which it is proposed to be perpetrated on the people of Singapore. This is a fraud. They are not to be given an opportunity to say whether they want a referendum or not. I repeat this, Sir - let it be clear enough, not that the Minister for Culture's Radio P.A.P. will ever carry it, but at least some of the newspapers will print it; some of the people will realise the meaning of the shabby performance and the shabby amendment, the shabby smokescreen to hide the naked power politics of this Fascist Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move an amendment to this amendment.

To leave out from the word "That" up to and including "question of merger"; to leave out "the Government's introduction of"; and to leave out "mode and manner of the inevitable".

So that the amendment now reads:

`That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia.'.

I am sorry I have been rather quick. Sir, and I have no copy. You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that we have just received it and we have just seen it.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member produce that amendment to the amendment in writing?

Mr David Marshall: Certainly, Sir.

Amendment to the amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: The amendment to the amendment is to leave out from the very beginning" in view" to the word "reunification" and there to insert "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the".

So that the amended motion will read:

`That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia.'.

Mr David Marshall: I am not proud of this as it stands now, Sir,It is a far cry from the solemn assurance of a decent act of respect to the people and the concept of democracy to this present welcome of a Bill which we may hope will bring about a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people. This is not the solemn assurance I seek. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a practical man. The vilifications to which I have been subjected repeatedly are an indication of the extent of the weakness of the Opposition before the Fascist's steamroller majority on the Government Benches. These are the people whose leader, the Prime Minister, said, "Mao Tse-tung says power is in the barrel of the gun." That is not the power I have; it is not the power I seek; and it is not the power I hope anybody in Singapore will seek. Those who, like the Prime Minister, seek it, I trust they will find it in a sustained absence away from these shores. Sir, it is because of the recognition of our numerical weakness that I seek to bring about at least some semblance of decency to this' smokescreen and this camouflage, to bring about something for which a man may vote without feeling dirty. It is a recognition of the fact, so heavily demonstrated today, of the dictatorship of the majority who have now made certain by a firm alliance with the S.P.A. that no matter what the feelings of the people and the feelings of the Opposition, they will always have the 30 votes. Yes, Sir, it is because of these reasons, and not because I expect even to impress them, nor even do I expect having failed in what was a far more reasonable motion that I would obtain their consent to this much more mild version. It is in order to bring out starkly and clearly the reprehensible reality of the Government's intention to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people willy-nilly. No wonder the Prime Minister said it would be criminal folly if there was a risk of losing the referendum. He believes in playing two-up, the Australian game with both sides of the coin on his side - heads I win, tails you lose attitude. To make quite certain, that is democracy, the democracy that loads the dice. Let them pour their filth, Sir. A time comes when the contempt of the people for this Government is such that those on whom they seek to pour scorn become heroes. Sir, rarely in the history of any democracy have I ever known, certainly in modern times, such a transparent, such a disgraceful act of contempt for democracy and for the people who elected them, a naked act of sheer abuse of majority power. An act of -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You are an enigma.

Mr David Marshall: - clear notice of treachery to the people, of an intention to destroy them as they fear; the intention is certainly to treat their wishes with complete contempt. Now we can see. Sir, that this incipient democracy which started seven years ago and which feared Communism as the enemy which would put an end to its existence must now recognise that it is this P.A.P. Government which will put an end to democracy in this country. I believe that here today we see a naked intention on the part of these gentlemen never again to stand for election and to make sure that there will never again be elections, for they are too ambitious to give up power and will see to it that they will continue in office. [Interruption] This, Sir, is now clear; not from the hands of the Communists, not by the hands of the Communists, it is a dagger used in the hands of these so-called socialist democrats, to stab democracy as they have stabbed socialism. Now we have it. Some of us have seen the signs. We have feared it; we have suspected it. But for the first time now, we see it in all its filthy nakedness, this conspiracy to practise a major fraud upon the people of Singapore. No wonder they want to suspend Standing Orders in order to go up to midnight. They want to rush this shame quickly behind them, the shame that is branded on them now and forever as the brand of Cain. No wonder they hate me, Mr Speaker. They hate me, I think even more than they hate the Communists. For in me they see -

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): A Messiah.

Mr David Marshall: Sometimes, Sir, they recognise the voice of a conscience they may once have had. They recognise that here at least -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) walked into the Chamber.

Mr David Marshall: Ah, here comes the great Prime Minister! [Laughter] And we welcome him, Mr Speaker!

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Anson has been on the verge of being disorderly. It is completely disorderly for any Member to comment on any other Member walking into this Chamber. The other Member is entitled to walk with decorum and to take his seat with decorum. He must not in any way be excited into becoming disorderly. Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was on this major act of perfidy which is now nakedly apparent in the amendment brought by the Deputy Prime Minister, disclosing that the Government have no intention whatsoever to put a referendum to the people as to whether or not they want the arrangements of Cmd. Paper No. 33. This referendum introduced with so much fanfare is intended no more and no less than to ask them for the mode and manner of implementing the White Paper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of my amendment is to delete the sycophantic and the obvious, and furthermore to delete the mode and manner and to leave at least possible for a subsequent motion that there will be a referendum giving the people an honest opportunity whether or not they want these arrangements. Criminal folly it may be insofar as the survival of the P.A.P. is concerned, but that criminal folly they have indulged in already. It is a question of, "Is democracy criminal folly because it is not advantageous to the Prime Minister and his colleagues?" This is criminal folly? Then, Sir, what is the distinction between their dictatorship and the Communist dictatorship?

Mr Rajaratnam: You won't be here.

Mr David Marshall: The Minister for Culture says, "I won't be here," and I have no doubt that in time when thin dictatorship has consolidated itself, I will not be here. I have not the slightest doubt about it.

Mr Rajaratnam: Then what are you here for?

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): He can let off gas here!

Mr David Marshall: Yes, I am glad to see them squirm and hear them squirm, Mr Speaker. These interruptions will in no way stay me. It was a tragic day, -

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear!

Mr David Marshall: - a tragic day for all the people, a tragic day when decent people trusted these men opposite. No doubt some of those on the Back Benches must have started with sincerity, dedication and without the megalomania and bitterness of some on the Front Benches, but now that they have been led up the garden path of dictatorship, I ask those on the Back Benches, "How does it feel?" [Interruption] Is there a conscience? For the Front Bench, we can expect power corrupts and power deadens the conscience. What about the Back Benches? How does it feel? Is your loyalty to your leaders greater than your loyalty to the people?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Anson should remember that he is addressing the Chair and my loyalties are here.

Mr David Marshall: I appreciate your correction. You are fortunate enough. Being an elected Member today, Sir, and suffering a sense of being dirtied, of being associated with others who have been equally trusted, who have been believed in, in whom these people had faith, and who today tell you not bluntly but in all the camouflage of the absurdity of this amendment that they intend to handcuff these very people and hand them bound hand and foot. These are the representatives whom the people trusted. I happen to be one in this Chamber. at this most unhappy moment in this Chamber in seven years.

So, Mr Speaker, our Prime Minister's riddle about - what were the words, Sir?

The Prime Minister: "mode and manner."

Mr David Marshall: The words were:

'So the question of winning or losing a referendum does not arise. If there was the slightest risk of merger being frustrated and the country plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists, let me say it will be criminal folly on the part of the Government to hold the referendum and to allow the future of Malaya and Malaysia to be imperilled.'

Now, the mystery is solved and the "criminal folly" explained. They do not intend to have a referendum. They do not intend to ask the people whether they want these arrangements of the P.A.P. or not. They do not intend to do so. The P.A.P. will be saved, and only the "mode and manner". Such contempt for a really decent population! I think, Sir, despite the abuse from both sides of the House about our people - and I say this as one who has travelled a fair amount - I know no place in the world where you can find as peaceable, as law-abiding and as decent a people as are in Singapore today, and I mean solemnly and in all sincerity every word I am saying. It is these people who have elected them and who are now to be betrayed. I can sit till midnight. I would sit till midnight next year if I thought for a moment that I could, like the bugler, blow down the walls of Jericho, but I cannot and I know that I cannot, Sir. Now we find the tragedy of democracy - the tragedy of democracy, Mr Speaker, is that between general elections you can with a group of arrogant people in the majority have as complete a dictatorship as under any Fascist or Communist regime, that you can between general elections tie the people hand and foot, put them in a gunny sack and dump them in the river. That is constitutional and there is nothing the people can do.

Sir, some weeks ago, I had occasion to be involved in a discussion about starting an anti-nuclear group in Singapore and I asked my Secretary, "Do you think we can achieve anything? Would the voice of 1� million people here be able to change the view of the stubborn nuclear powers?" She said, "If we must die, let us at least die shouting." That is what I say to this House. If we must die, then I shall shout. I shall shout till the people know. I shall shout to the people of the Federation who themselves, being decent people, will be ashamed of condoning this fraud that is being perpetrated upon the people by the Government of Singapore. I appeal now not to the Front Benches -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Anson is forgetting the ruling I made some time ago, that voices should as far as possible not be raised in this Assembly.

Mr David Marshall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry for having inconvenienced you. I am appealing in the name of decency as brothers of those in the Federation to the citizens of the Federation not to condone an act of perfidy on the part of the P.A.P. Government that is being perpetrated upon the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.".

Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end, and insert -

"in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia".

Since which an amendment to the amendment has been moved,

To leave out from the beginning of the amendment in line 1 to "reunification" and insert -

"this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." We are now debating the amendment to the amendment.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, perhaps we could have a break for mealtime?

Mr Speaker: I propose to do that if it is the wish of the majority of Members. Perhaps it is a convenient time to suspend for three-quarters of an hour?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I will take the Chair then at 9 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.15 p.m. until 9 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.".

Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert-

"in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia".

Since then an amendment to the amendment has been moved,

To leave out from the beginning in line 1 to "reunification" and there to insert-

"this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the".

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

The debate is on the amendment to the amendment by the Member for Anson.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Can we have the actual amendment before as, Sir?

Mr Speaker: There are no copies available.

The debate is open. Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson?

9.05 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis share the anger expressed by the Member for Anson. In the past the P.A.P. have shown to the House how dictatorial they have been. What we witness today, Sir, is not parliamentary democracy but parliamentary dictatorship; a dictatorship imposed on us and on the House by a group of discredited politicians who have no more capital to sustain themselves but the force of numbers.

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems to me that it would be convenient if both the amendment of the Government and the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson could be debated together. I personally think it is convenient if the amendment of the Government and the amendment to the amendment of the Member for Anson are debated together, and at the end of the debate those two amendments can be disposed of.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I would rather speak on the amendment to the amendment alone, Sir.

Mr Speaker: In that case, I must ask the Member for Queenstown to confine himself to reasons why the words suggested to be left out by the Member for Anson should be left out, i.e., the words, "in view of the Government's dearly stated stand on the question of merger", the words "the Government's introduction", and the words "mode and manner of the inevitable".

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion as amended asks this House to welcome the Singapore National Referendum Bill - May I get this straight first, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Order. The amendment of the Deputy Prime Minister is to insert these words,

"in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia".

The Member for Anson has moved an amendment to the amendment,

To leave out the words "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger - I am paraphrasing the amendment. The Member for Anson suggests that those words should come out. He also suggests that the words, "the Government's introduction of", and "mode and manner of the inevitable" should come out. So that his amendment to the first part of the Government's amendment would, if carried, read:

"That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wisbes of the people on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised", etc.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, I wish to inform you that we will move an amendment to the amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Oh God!

Mr Speaker: An amendment to the amendment to the amendment of the Member for Anson, or an amendment to the amendment of the Deputy Prime Minister?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I wish to move an amendment to the amendment to the, amendment of the Member for Anson.

After the word "people", to delete all the words and to add,

`as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33) before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia".

The whole amended motion will read:

"That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33) before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia."

Mr Speaker: The effect of that is that the Member for Queenstown desires to leave out from the Government's amendment all the words from the very beginning, that is, "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand" etc. down to the words "Federation of Malaya", and there to insert the words he has suggested. That is, that "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33)". If I am correct in my reading, the rest of the words follow the amendment moved by the Government. Is that correct?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am amending the Member for Anson's amendment.

Mr Speaker: To start off with, instead of leaving out, as the Member for Anson has suggested, from the beginning to "reunification", the Member for Queenstown seeks to leave out from the beginning to the words "before arrangements". Once that is accepted, then we go to the second limb of the amendment; that is, to discuss whether or not the words suggested to be inserted, should be inserted.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the reason for my amendment to the amendment to the amendment is very clear. The White Paper has been presented by the P.A.P. Government to the House. The P.A.P. Government have taken great pains to explain their merger proposals to the people through Radio P.A.P., the Ministry of Culture pamphlets, Malaysia Week, Malaysia racing vehicles - the Grand Prix - and, of course, the newspapers. They have spent a lot of money on it. They have also sent touring teams over to the Borneo territories and to the Federation in the guise of playing football, basketball, and table tennis matches to publicise the P.A.P. type of merger to the people. The P.A.P. merger proposals are concrete proposals which have been suggested and accepted by the two Governments. They had spent considerable time to get the White Paper ready so that they could present the heads of agreement as embodied in the White Paper (Command Paper 33) to the House.

Under those circumstances, Sir, the P.A.P. should be very proud of those proposals. They should have nothing to worry about and nothing to fear. They should under no circumstances be ashamed of putting those proposals before the people. If the proposals are so good, as they have all the time claimed them to be, then there is no reason why the P.A.P. Government should now be afraid to put them before the people as the real test as to whether or not they are acceptable to the people. In fact, they should be very happy to ask for a simple yes or no to the proposals which they have taken such great pains to get ready. It had been the Government's intention to bring these White Paper proposals to the people for endorsement. But, Sir, it is generally known outside that these proposals of the P.A.P. are not such good things as they are made out to be. The P.A.P. too know that the White Paper proposals are completely unacceptable to the people.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chew Chua): To you.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If, as the Member for Tampines thinks, it is only unacceptable to me, then here is a clear chance for the Government to put them before the people.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Certainly.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is what they should do. Therefore, under those circumstances, we see no reason why the Government Benches cannot accept our amendment. Since the grand old man of this House and of the Party has given the word, I hope the Front Benches, as they are much younger will listen to his wisdom and put these proposals before the people. I only hope the P.A.P. will live up to their word of always accepting the will of the people.

The Member for Anson has already given you an indication of the intentions of the Government. It is clear that the Government probably have no intention of even holding a referendum: and if they hold a referendum, they want to make sure that it is a case of heads the P.A.P. win, and tails the people of Singapore lose. Under any circumstances, the P.A.P. ensure they must win. That, of course, Sir, is a clear indication of what confidence they have in their own White Paper proposals. It is strongly rumoured outside -

Mr Rajaratnam: Why do you believe in rumours?

An hon. Member: Barisan rumours.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - that the P.A.P. Government, fearing that their White Paper proposals will not be acceptable to the people, will probably pose two questions instead. That is why there is "the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification", according to the words of the original amendment of the Government. The mode and manner has been amply explained by the Member for Anson, and I think we can all see the Machiavellian machinations behind those two wonderful words. Mode and manner! As the Member for Anson puts it, it is almost a case of whether you want the people to die by hanging or to die by drowning. What we are interested in is not dying. Why do we not allow the people a chance to live? Give them a chance to live and not a chance to die. If they are only given a chance to die - if that is the intention of the P.A.P. Government, then that is the end of parliamentary democracy in this part of the world.

It is common knowledge, Sir, that the P.A.P. Government intend to ask two questions on merger. As so well shown by those two words, "mode" and "manner", they will probably ask the people whether they want the P.A.P. White Paper merger or some form of merger which is inferior -

Mr Rajaratnam: Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - to the White Paper merger. Everybody knows that the Government have all the time been harping on the Penang and Malacca type. That is the point, Sir, and it is such a distortion of our stand. If they should present truthfully our views and. the type of merger that the Barisan Sosialis stand' for, then the people will be given an honest picture and will understand. Now they are telling the whole world that the Barisan Sosialis stand for the Penang type of merger. This is a complete fabrication and a lie. The true type of merger which we in the Barisan Sosialis stand for is complete merger with all the citizens of Singapore becoming citizens of the Federation. In other words, all the 624,000 citizens of Singapore must on merger automatically become 624,000 Federation citizens, with Singapore having proportional representation in the Central Parliament. But no, Sir. This is not the true picture which the P.A.P. contortionists and culture experts are presenting to the people. They only know how to twist and turn.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: That is a new dance!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They want to make sure that they give distorted versions of the Barisan Sosialis stand to the people. I would ask the P.A.P. Government not to trick the people in such a silly fashion. Let them be honest. They were elected by the people and they have a duty to the people to be honest with them. They have all the time claimed that they are the representatives of the people. Let them prove that they listen to the will of the people, and not try to cheat them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Honour your pledge!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The fact that the leader of the House in his amendment asks to leave out "the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum -".

Mr Speaker: Order. That illustrates my point. The Member for Queenstown is now debating the Government's amendment. I suggested that that would be an easier course, but he is now going out of order by debating the Government's amendment. He can only debate that part of the Government's amendment which the Member for Anson has suggested should be left out.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the amendment I have moved will definitely give a chance to the P.A.P. Government to prove whether or not they can keep their word at least this time. They have repeatedly said that the final outcome of any form of merger will be decided by the people. They have gone to great lengths to bring about agreement with the Federation on their White Paper. Now that they have come to an agreement with the Federation Government, it is time that they brought these proposals before the people and ask them whether or not they are acceptable to them. I hope the P.A.P. will be able to accept the amendment I have put forward.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed."

Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert-

"in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia".

Since which an amendment to the amendment has been moved,

To leave out from the beginning to "reunification" and there to insert -

"this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the".

Since which an amendment to the amendment to the amendment has been moved,

To leave out from the Government amendment, from the beginning to the words "before arrangements", and there to insert "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33)".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." I would indicate to hon. Members that the debate must of necessity range over not only the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown, but also the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson; the reason being that if the proposals to leave out the words from the Government amendment are defeated, then it follows that the amendment of the Member for Queenstown will be defeated, and so will the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. The first Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr David Marshall: As I understand it, the words to be left out proposed by the amendment to my amendment are up to the seventh line; mine is up to the sixth; and in the circumstances, surely any negativing of that amendment does not necessarily imply negativing of mine which is of a more limited character. I would like to understand this, when it comes to the question of voting, surely the amendments will be put individually to the House.

Mr Speaker: The difficulty is that both the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson desire that certain words up to the word "reunification" in the Government's amendment be left out. But the Member for Queenstown goes a little further. He suggests that the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya" also be left out. So that the first Question is, "That all the words proposed by the Member for Queenstown to be left out, be left out." If that amendment is defeated, then, of course, the whole amendment is defeated. I cannot see any other convenient way of putting it to Members. Is there any other point?

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the amendment is negatived, it may well be that Members do not want to delete the additional line which involves the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Surely. Sir, then the other amendment should be put as to the deletion of the first six lines "mode and manner of the inevitable", to ascertain whether the rest would be acceptable. As I understand the normal procedure, an amendment to an amendment is taken first. It has priority. Then the amendment itself, if the amendment to it is defeated, is put to the House.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Anson then suggests that Members might wish to retain the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya" as well as the other words proposed by the Member for Anson himself. Well, in that case, the first Question which I will put then is, "That the words `reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya' proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Rajaratnam rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Rajaratnam, on the amendments?

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, I presume I am talking on the amendment to the amendment to the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, personally I do not think there is much difference in intent between the amendment by the Member for Anson and the amendment by the Member for Queenstown, because during the three-quarters of an hour recess that we had, obviously there have been second thoughts on the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. So as far as intention is concerned, there is really no basic difference except that the Barisan Sosialis have gone further and revealed their hand. One of the omissions is the word "reunification" which is obviously a retrogression from the amendment made by the Member for Anson who at least makes a semblance of believing in merger. But the Barisan Sosialis have obviously come to the conclusion that what they really want is an independent Singapore. Now they want a way out to prepare the ground for the next phase of their propaganda, that what they really want is an independent Singapore.

Sir, as an indication of the deliberate attempt on the part of the Barisan Sosialis, to mislead the House, part of their technique is to accuse other people of distortion: of falsehoods. As regards the statement made just a few minutes ago by the Member for Queenstown wherein he denied that the Barisan Sosialis had ever suggested that they wanted merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca, that was one of the slips they made. Those of us who read their publications know that they are now trying to wriggle out of it by saying, never said these things. That is a complete distortion of our stand by the Government." Sir, by a stroke of good luck, we have here copies of the letters sent by all the political Parties to the Deputy Prime Minister when he asked them to state their stand on merger. There is one from the S.P.A., one from the Workers' Party and one from the Barisan Sosialis. A few minutes ago, Sir, for the record the Member for Queenstown said that that was a complete distortion. I want to say that it is just as well for us to bear in mind that the Barisan Sosialis have now come to a point where they are prepared to tell falsehoods in the belief that they cannot be challenged. One of the reasons why the Member for Queenstown and his friends avoid coming to a debate over the radio is that they can be challenged. Sir, I have here a copy of the letter which their Party sent officially to the Deputy Prime Minister stating the terms and conditions of their merger. This is what they said:

`The way ahead for reunification of our country and our people is in one of two directions - an immediate full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent state like Penang and Malacca.'

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajaratnam: Yet, a few minutes ago, Sir, he said that that was a complete distortion by the P.A.P. Government. This is a warning that any statement made by the Barisan in their desperate moments must be taken with not only a pinch of salt, but a handful of salt.

Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Point of order and clarification at the same time, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Member must make up his mind.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Point of order, Sir. It is a complete distortion of facts and a telling of lies.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is out of order by mentioning the word "lies". I will not call him. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I am prepared for clarification if the -

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes. This is a copy of the letter wherein they said the way ahead for reunification - a word which they left out in the amendment because obviously it has become an awkward thing. It is on record - "and the way ahead for reunification is...". This is an exact copy of the letter. It is not only a copy of the letter, it is also a copy of the programme of the inaugural meeting of the Barisan Sosialis. The same thing was circulated. There it states quite specifically:

`an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca.

(b) an autonomous unit within a confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible.'

This is a typical example -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order, Sir. The Minister has been misquoting. If he wishes to quote, I will ask him to quote the whole text and not just one or two sentences.

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir,I was quoting the relevant bits. If I were to read the whole text, it would probably be more embarrassing to the Barisan Sosialis Members, because they conceded all sorts of things from which they want to wriggle out now. I am very sorry to say, Sir, that the Member for Anson has also the habit, which he has learnt from the Barisan Sosialis, of coming forward - since the word "lie" is prohibited - and telling a bare-faced falsehood, because he quoted something else from the Prime Minister earlier on; but I shall come to that when we deal with his amendment. This is part of the technique, if you will remember. Sir -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. An allegation is being made. Surely, it, should be substantiated now, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister substantiates that statement now, I think he will be out of order. We are now dealing with the amendment. He has stated in so many words that he will come to it at the proper time.

Mr Rajaratnam: If you will remember, Sir, at the last sitting I did say that one of the tenets of the Communist doctrine - at that time they laughed it off - is that a Communist should be prepared to tell falsehoods and lies and distort facts if necessary for the cause. When we say the Barisan Sosialis are pro-Communist, they not only substantiate it by what they do but also by their method and manner of conducting debates.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would suggest to the Minister that if he must point, he points at the Chair.

Mr Rajaratnam: Anyway, Sir, we have said enough to show that the Barisan Sosialis Communists have now come to a stage where their word is not worth the paper they wrote on to the Deputy Prime Minister, because earlier on they repudiated it. I think it is now necessary for us and for the people of Singapore to take the Barisan Sosialis not as a body of men whose words can be trusted hut as men who are prepared to twist and turn and even prepared to spit at their own words. Take the document that they sent officially to the Deputy Prime Minister who asked them to state their stand on merger. They are prepared to spit on what they themselves have written in black and white, just as they are prepared to spit on their undertaking that if they were expelled from the Party they would resign. They have now come to be real full-fledged Communists who, as one of the Communist tenets says, must be prepared to lie and distort facts so as to serve the cause for which they stand.

Sir, as regards the amendment, apart from the careful precaution of leaving out "reunification", it means that the Barisan Sosialis are now taking the next step - which we have predicted - of fighting for an independent Singapore, which is what they want. As their logic has driven them to spout communal and racial propaganda, so they must now take the next step to fight for an independent Singapore, and that, Sir, is one reason why it is necessary for them to leave out the word "reunification".

As regards the latter part of the amendment, it is quite clear that it has nothing to do with the spirit and intent of the motion, which is to get an assurance from the Government that a referendum will be held.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On what basis?

Mr Rajaratnam: But this amendment goes a bit further than that. They are now trying to commit the House to state beforehand the terms of the referendum. That is a matter outside the scope of the motion. What they are saying is that now the Government should state, "Oh, this is how we should set the question." When the Referendum Bill is before this House, then it will be decided as to who sets the question and how it will be set. Therefore, this amendment is an attempt - obviously during the three-quarters of an hour break some of the bright boys thought it out - to commit the House to state beforehand the terms of the referendum. By the deletion of the words "mode and manner", they are again substantiating our contention that they are no longer interested in merger. The words "mode and manner" were introduced because all of us - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party - believe in merger. We believe in merger in principle. We believe in the concept of merger in the abstract. Therefore, we say, "That is right. Everybody believes in merger. Nobody disagrees with merger." So what we want to find out is the "mode and manner": what kind of merger do we want? That is a matter which will be decided when the referendum is framed. Therefore, this amendment to the amendment to the amendment is an attempt to go beyond the original spirit and intent of the motion to commit the House to decide beforehand on how the referendum should be framed. That is not the purpose. The purpose is to get an assurance from this House and from the Government that a referendum will be held.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown quoted the Member for Anson - I am always very intrigued to note how they quote each other. The Member for Anson uses phrases like "majority dictatorship". Obviously he believes in minority dictatorship. The Member for Queenstown is only a tenderfoot in this business. He talks about parliamentary dictatorship. Sin, I have never seen such a term as "parliamentary dictatorship" in any political science textbook. I would have thought that "parliamentary" was a negation of "dictatorship", but obviously in the logic of the Barisan Sosialis, two and two make five: black is white; you put out a written statement saying that you believe in merger like Penang and Malacca, and three months later you say that you never said such a thing; and when copies of such a statement are presented to them, they say. "Oh, read the whole text - 12 pages of text." Therefore, when the Member for Queenstown says, "Oh, the Member for Anson has said that the Government is going to frame the question for referendum asking whether one would like to die by drowning or by hanging," I can give him the assurance here and now that such a question is not going to be submitted for the consideration by the people of Singapore. If there is going to be any hanging, the hanging will be done by the Members concerned; but as far as we are concerned, I can give the same assurance to the Member for Anson who is always caught in his own metaphors. He starts off with a metaphor, which, for him, becomes a fact, so much so that the Member for Queenstown gets also worked up and says, "Oh, the people want to live. They do not want to die." But I can assure him that that is not going to be one of the questions. The people are not going to be asked whether they want to die by hanging or by drowning or by any other means. The questions are going to be far more serious than that though it might result in Members of the Barisan Sosialis, who have already started on a suicidal course, probably being driven to that extreme as a way out of their difficulties.

Sir, I therefore submit that this amendment is, firstly, an attempt to go beyond the scope of the original motion - and even of the amended motion by the Government - to more or less commit this Assembly to framing the questions for the referendum. I can quite understand the anxiety that the Barisan Sosialis feel about the type of questions that are going to be put to the people. Because of their own blunders, they committed themselves first to merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. They then committed themselves to merger as a concept; and they finally committed themselves to internal self-government for Singapore. Therefore, they cannot reconcile all these contradictions. The fate and future of the Barisan Sosialis and of the Communists who direct them is now dependent on one, or two, or three, or five or ten crosses that are going to be put on the ballot paper. That will seal the fate of the Malayan Communist Party who for 30 years have struggled for something which is now going to be lost as a result of the voting on the referendum. All the work of 30 years has now to go by the board. Therefore, it is a life and death battle for the Malayan Communists who are directing the gentlemen in the Barisan Sosialis. During a war, if you want to find out whether there is a land mine, you send the sheep first; and that is the role the Barisan Sosialis are playing. They are now in the minefield. A sheep is in the minefield. They know that the mines are there and that they will be detonated and exploded the day the people of Singapore go and vote on the question that will be put to them by the Government. I do not want to digress,, but it is necessary for me to explain why it is important to frame the questions for the referendum in such a way as to ensure that the people understand what, they are voting for, because the Barisan Sosialis have twisted and turned this question of merger so much so that today everybody is confused about it. Today they have come back to their last weapon - "This is a Chinese versus Malays issue." They have made such a `statement and they have now descended to using the lowliest weapon. Therefore, it is necessary for us to see that, when the questions for the referendum are framed, they will not be put in such a way as to confuse the people but that it will be made quite clear to the people what the real issues involved in merger are, so that they will be able to vote in an intelligent fashion, because the questions will be posed in an intelligent way and not in the way that the Barisan Sosialis want. They want them to be put in such a way that they can go round telling the people, "There you are. The Malays will come and rule this place, it is a sell-out to the Malays." That is a dangerous weapon. Let me tell them, Sir, that in India also the Communists tried it. In Ceylon too they tried it. And the ones who were destroyed were the Communist Party elements, and not the non-Communist elements. So those who take up the communal weapon will be destroyed by the communal weapon. We are not afraid of that, Sir. They are afraid. That is why they are now trying to oppose this motion so that they can ensure that the questions for the referendum are framed in the way they want them to be framed. We are not such saps. For nine months we have struggled not with the Barisan Sosialis but with the boys behind them. They know that today they have come to a dead end. They see a blank wall and now have no choice but either to climb it or retreat.

Sir, I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, it is an attempt to inveigle the House into voting for something which has nothing to do with the real intent and purpose of this motion. Second, it is an indication of the thinking of the Barisan Sosialis. Today they have come to point that what they really want to start, as the next phase of their battle, is the fight for an independent Singapore. It is quite well known, Sir, that at the last meeting of the Singapore General Employees' Union, Mr Lim Ching Siong did say openly at this meeting of the cadres that they should fight for an independent Singapore. I think the Member for Anson would be very relieved to hear that, because that was what he had been pressing for. We are passing him a tip so that he may enter into negotiations with Mr Lim Ching Siong.

Mr David Marshall: Where was this?

Mr Rajaratnam: Then, Sir, at the annual meeting of the Singapore General Employees' Union at the Victoria Memorial Hall, Mr Lim Ching Siong said, "We must fight for an independent Singapore. The masses are now fighting a desperate battle." When they say "masses", we know it means the Barisan Sosialis. We are passing a friendly tip to the Member for Anson who has been more or less running them down, saying that while he is prepared for an independent Singapore the Barisan Sosialis want only an internally self-governing Singapore. Let him therefore stop all this pretence of being two different people. Let them all come together, because if they are in the same boat, Sir, when the boat goes down, they will all go down.

10.04 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, the crux of all the amendments is not whether it is the Government that has introduced the National Referendum Bill or whether the Government has clearly stated its stand on merger, but on the mode and manner of the merger that is going to be brought about.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is fully committed to holding a referendum on merger, and there is no way for them to pull out of it. The only way left for it is to carry out successfully its White Paper proposals on merger, and, as we have said in the last Assembly debate, to put out an alternative, as what the Minister for Culture has said just now, a Penang and Malacca type of merger, which the Opposition Parties in this Assembly did not vote for, at least not we in the U.P.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 12th October, 1961, the Prime Minister wrote to the leaders of the Opposition Parties in the Assembly. The Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis, and the U.P.P. asked the Leader of the House to convene an emergency sitting of the Assembly to discuss the P.A.P.'s merger proposals. The contents of the letter addressed to the leaders of the Opposition Parties were released to the Straits Times on 15th October, 1961. I shall quote extracts from the Straits Times of 15th October, 1961. The Prime Minister wrote:

'"Not only you as Members of the Opposition but also the whole of the people of Singapore should be fully informed of the agreement in principle that has been reached between the two Governments."

He added: "Every step forward made should be communicated to you as Members of the Opposition and also to the people of Singapore.

It is the intention of the Government when all the details have been worked out to publish a paper and table it in the Legislative Assembly for debate. The people can accept or reject them."'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has been honourable in putting up all his proposals which are embodied in Command Paper 33, and this Paper has been tabled in the Legislative Assembly for debate and has been supported by the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. in this Assembly.

Mr Rajaratnam: U.M.N.O. too.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes, U.M.N.O. too which has now joined the S.P.A. Alliance. But there is this last sentence which the Prime Minister wrote to the leaders of the Opposition Parties. "The people can accept or reject them." That means that a referendum will be held and the people can accept or reject the White Paper proposals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, not only is the Government committed to a referendum in this letter of 12th October, 1961, addressed to all leaders of the Opposition Parties, but it is further committed in that the question posed in the referendum will be whether the people accept or reject the White Paper proposals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the last referendum held in the world was the one held in France on Algerian independence. The people of France were asked either "oui" or "non" (yes or no) to whether they agree (yes or no) to giving Algeria independence. I shall also quote a book which shows the referendum process held in Australia in 1951. The book is entitled Communism and Democracy in Australia, and is written by Webb. Page 50:

`The form of the ballot paper for a referendum is set out in a schedule to the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, and the ballot paper itself gives the following instructions on how to vote.

"If you approve of the proposed law, place the number 1 in the square opposite the word "Yes", and the number 2 in the square opposite the word "No". If you do not approve of the proposed law, place the number 1 in the square opposite the word "No", and the number 2 in the square opposite the word "Yes"."'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is described in this book that in the Australian Referendum Act, the wording of the referendum is contained in the Act itself, and no government in power can play the fool in a referendum. In the 1951 referendum, the question asked was this - I shall quote page 51:

`In the 1951 referendum the question asked on the ballot paper was: Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled Constitution (A Iteration Powers) to deal with Communists and Communism, 1951?'

Mr Speaker, Sir, in all referendum processes in the world, the question posed before the voters always asks the voter yes or no'. If we accept this democratic process practised in other countries and which the Prime Minister has promised Members of the Opposition, then the question which the Government should pose is: "Do you approve of the White Paper proposals or not?" Mr Speaker, Sir, it will not be fair and it will be undemocratic if the workers are asked whether they prefer which manner and mode of merger - the P.A.P. merger proposals as contained in Paper Cmd. 33, or the Penang and Malacca type of merger which none of the Opposition Parties in this Assembly has supported. The Opposition Parties in this Assembly never voted for a Penang/Malacca type of merger. If the worst comes to the worst and the people were asked what type of merger they would prefer, then the ballot paper should put forward the two alternatives which the two groups of Parties in this Assembly have supported. One alternative was the White Paper merger proposals, and the other is complete merger with automatic Federal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens.

10.12 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Sir, whenever the question of merger or a form of close association with the Federation is considered, we always reach a stage where we break records in this Assembly! The last time we debated merger, I think the debate went on for 12 days. This time when it comes close to merger or something related to merger, we have three amendments on an original motion. To my knowledge, Mr Speaker, that has never happened in the history of this Assembly or of any other Assembly since elections were introduced into Singapore.

The position seems to be a very curious one. Whenever merger or anything connected with it is discussed in this august Chamber, everybody is agreed on merger. Not a soul dissents from it. The Member for Anson possibly had some doubts whether any form of merger was the best thing and whether it might not be better for Singapore to be independent. He certainly voiced that doubt. But other than him, every single Member in this House, whether he belonged to a Party or not, supported merger and supported a closer form of association with the Federation. So that when we had completed the previous debate on merger, two clear issues seemed to emerge at the conclusion of that debate. The first one was the merger proposals as set out in the White Paper which the House eventually approved. The second was the merger proposal as set out by the Barisan Sosialis, which was, at least in so far as the debate related itself to the motion, that Singapore should come in as the twelfth State (thirteenth or fourteenth, as the case may be), and exactly like Johore or any other State. That was the way it was put. Malacca and Penang were studiously avoided from that debate, as far as I can remember.

So that, Mr Speaker, as far as I can make out, the position today is this: all the political Parties are agreed on merger. But each of them has different views as to what merger should be, or how merger should be effected, or the complete ramification which must logically ensue on such a merger, whatever type of merger it may be. On that, there are differences of opinion in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult for me to understand why we are arguing more about a referendum than about the positions taken up by the various Parties in the debate on merger. As far as I can make out - I hope I am not dumb in this - the Government have accepted the position that before any form of association or merger, as the case may be, is accepted in the Federation, there will be consultation with the people. The Government have expressly said so, and in this debate, at least from the statements made by the Minister for Culture and the Deputy Prime Minister, that seems to emerge quite clearly. So far as the Alliance is concerned, there must be a merger. We accept that. The Government have committed themselves to it and they will carry it out. Why then did the Member for Anson move this motion? I myself find it very difficult to understand why he moved it. If he had any doubts in this matter, he could have easily written to the Hon. the Prime Minister and told him this. "Look, this is what I hear in town. Is this correct or not?" And a suitable reply from the Prime Minister would have saved us all this trouble. This is a complete waste of time of the House and, to some extent, the Government are encouraging it, if I may put it that way. A short and simple answer to the Member for Anson could well have been, "Of course, we are going to have a referendum." That might well have been the end of the matter. But no. There are undertones and overtones to this which it is very difficult to understand and appreciate. The undertones and the overtones are getting even more subtle than they were at the time of the merger debate. Everybody knows there must be a referendum. I think the Barisan Sosialis know there is going to be a referendum. The Workers' Party know there is going to be a referendum. The Alliance know it and the Government know it. What then are we arguing about, Mr Speaker? I will tell you what the argument is about. It is about whether it is going to be in the form of one question or two questions or three questions. That is really what is agitating the minds of the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party. From the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, we can see the fear of the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party emerging quite clearly and basically.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, a referendum is a device used by a parliamentary democracy for direct consultation with the people. Normally a parliamentary democracy does not consult the people. But this is a device which Australia and Canada, and America for that matter, have adopted from the continental countries. But as far as I know, the English type of democracy does not favour a direct referendum to the people. This is practised in Australia particularly and in Canada, and in the younger democracies it is certainly a very useful device to consult the wishes of the people. The governing words, Mr Speaker, Sir, are "to consult the wishes of the people to ascertain what is in their minds." Now if all of us then are agreed on merger, but if all of us are not agreed on the exact type of merger, what then should be the form of the referendum? How should the consultation with the people take place? If the consultation is going to be a genuine consultation, the question must be framed in such a way that the people can, as nearly as possible through this advice, express their views in order that the Government and the Assembly might be guided by their views. Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be an absolute waste of time to go to a referendum if the whole Assembly knew exactly what was in the minds of the people of Singapore. A referendum is only justified if we have some doubts on the matter on which we are going to the country on a referendum. What is the doubt to be resolved? The doubt to be resolved, Mr Speaker, is not whether there should be a merger. There is no doubt about that. We are all agreed on it. But there is a great deal of doubt as to what type of merger should be, how merger should be effected and possibly when merger should be effected. Those are the matters on which we are not agreed, and on which some of us are doubtful. I know what I want, but it could well be that I may be wrong. And therefore it becomes imperative to consult the people on that issue.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is a correct appreciation of the situation, how then can we determine - by just putting one question to the people? "Do you accept the White Paper proposals or not?" Right. Supposing that was the only question posed to the electorate and the answer was a no, shall we say. Where is the Assembly? Does the Assembly know exactly what is in the minds of the people? We are not very much forrader, Mr Speaker. The people might be in favour of the proposal of the Barisan Sosialis. Should they not be given an opportunity to express their views on it? I think, in fairness, they should. Or they might be in favour of the original proposal of the Member for Anson, that we should be an independent territory, completely divorced from the Commonwealth maybe, or working within the Commonwealth or within the Security Council. These are matters on which some advice should be sought from the people. And if advice is to be sought from the people along `those lines, how are you going to achieve it? By acceding to the amendment of the Member for Queenstown? It would be a practical impossibility. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not really interested - at least some of us are not really interested - in seeking a solution to this problem. I think we are interested in jamming up the works. The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is done in that spirit and we cannot support it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of the Opposition have moved an amendment which I think should not have been brought up at all. The real fact is that the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party are opposed to Malaysia and merger. Let us take the Barisan Sosialis, it is a Party which is opposed to merger. The motive of this Party is to come forward and oppose Malaysia by way of opposing merger. So this amendment which they have moved is actually unnecessary. But they come to this House to bring up all sorts of questions and excuses to confuse the vision of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Member for Anson saying just now that the P.A.P. is a dictatorial Party. I will tell the Member for Anson this. If we were dictatorial, then he would have been in the gas chamber instead of in the Legislative Assembly Chamber. I repeat, he would have been in the gas chamber instead of in the Legislative Assembly Chamber.

The Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, also says that we are dictatorial. He further accuses us of making full use of the facilities of Radio Singapore and the table-tennis team and all sorts of travelling missions to propagate our Malaysia concept. What I do not understand is this. If we are prepared to explain our stand to the people, then how can we be called dictatorial? If we are dictatorial, why should we go and explain to the people? We can very well tell them that we want this and they must follow. So I was quite surprised that the Member for Queenstown should, have brought up this kind of unreasonable argument to convince the people This is very difficult for him to do. The people will not be convinced of his argument. Although this may be beside the point, I will explain why many Party branches of the P.A.P. have sent out basket-ball and table-tennis teams to places connected with Malaysia. The reason is very simple. In the past, there were some narrow-minded people in our Party who were pro-Communist and who' monopolised the work of the Party, thereby undermining the Party in the eyes of the people. Now we have taken a new step in order to extend the activities of the Party.

The Member for Queenstown also says that a lot of rumours have been flying about in Singapore. But in the past he never said anything about rumours. So 1 believe they started their rumour campaign on the 1st of April, which is April Fool's Day, on a house-to-house visit. That is how the rumours started. I can tell this House of their visits to the people. Actually they did not go and explain to the people. When they visited the people at their houses, they wished them good-morning or called them uncles, and before the people could ask them any question, they would tell them that they should not accept merger or Malaysia. If they did, then the Chinese would be sold to the Malays. If they visited Malay family, they would say Malaysia was bad. If they visited an Indian family, they would say that after merger Singapore's economy would deteriorate.

They have brought up all sorts of questions and excuses just to whip up racial emotions to confuse the vision of the people and to undermine the materialisation of Malaysia. So after their campaign and house-to-house visits, starting from the 1st of April, they come and tell us that there are rumours flying about in Singapore about Malaysia and merger. Actually these rumours have been started by them. They have been started as a result of what they have told the people. So the rumours which they have started are ringing in their own ears. Then they come and tell the House that the whole of Singapore is full of rumours. I believe that as Chairman of the Party, the Member for Queenstown, who is unable to reflect the views and opinions of the people, should not come to this House and say that there are a lot of rumours in town. They also say that the Barisan do not want the people to die. The P.A.P.'s Malaysia plan and the merger plan do not want the people to die. Instead these two plans want the people to live, because we know that if the Malaysia plan materialises, then, territorially speaking, we become bigger. We can expand. Economically, we can provide more jobs for our young people. So in all respects, Malaysia will bring a new and better life to the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is now going into too many details. In fact, he is debating Malaysia. He can just mention Malaysia in passing, but he should not debate Malaysia now. We have done that already.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to take up too much of the Assembly's time. I am coming to the end of my speech. What I am trying to say is that, as Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown should not have said what he has said. That is why I stand up to reply. He says that if the people accept the Malaysia plan, then they will be confronted with death. Now, we do not have to bother with which Party is able to bring about Malaysia. We have to look ahead and ask this: With the success of Malaysia, will there be a greater nation? This is an important question. Now, if we can have a greater nation with a larger piece of land, then there will be greater opportunities for jobs for the people. So, for a Party Chairman to advance such arguments is very bad indeed.

10.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker: We will now dispose of the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown.

The original Question was,

"That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.".

Since which an amendment has been moved by the Deputy Prime Minister to leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia".

Since which an amendment has been moved by the Member for Anson to the amendment, to leave out from the very beginning to the word "reunification" and there to insert "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the".

Since which the Member for Queenstown has moved an amendment to the amendment to the amendment, to leave out from the beginning of the Deputy Prime Minister's amendment to `the words, "before arrangements" and there to insert "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33)".

The Question I put is a Question which is necessitated by reason of the fact that the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson are desirous that certain words in the Deputy Prime Minister's amendment be omitted. The Member for Queenstown desires that the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya" should be omitted: whereas the Member for An-son has not suggested that those words be omitted. So, the first Question I would like an answer to is that the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya" proposed to be left out, be left out."

I might add that if the voting is against those words being left out, then the whole amendment of the Member for Queenstown falls. I will put the Question then.

10.37 p.m.

Question put, "That the words `reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya' proposed to be left out, be left out."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 24; Abstentions, 6; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Fung Yin Ching, Omar Junid Miss Byrne, K. M. Lee Siew Choh Chan Chee Seng Leong Keng Seng Chan Choy Siong, Madam Lin You Eng Chor Yeok Eng Lingam, S. V. Goh Chew Chua Low Por Tuck Goh Keng Swee Marshall, David Hoe Puay Choo, Madam Ng Teng Kian Kandasamy, G Ong Chang Sam Lee Khoon Choy Ong Eng Guan Lee Kuan Yew Sheng Nam Chin Lee Teck Him Tan Cheng Tong Lim Cheng Lock Tee Kim Leng Mammen, John Teo Hock Guan Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Wong Soon Fong M. Ismail Rahim Ong Pang Boon Abstentions. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Ahmad Jabri bin Sahorah binte Mohammad Akib Ahmat, Madam Koh, C. H. Tan Kia Gan Lim Yew Hock Toh Chin Chye Rajah, A. P. Wee Toon Boon Seow Peck Leng, Yaacob bin Mohamed Mrs Thio Chan Bee Absent. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat Ahmad bin Ibrahim Bani, S. T. Mohd, Ali bin Alwi Yong Nyuk Lin

Mr Speaker: The result of the voting is that the whole of the amendment of the Member for Queenstown is defeated. We are now back to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson, which is in relation to the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendment is to leave out from the beginning of that amendment to "reunification", that is to say, to leave out the words "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable", and there to insert, "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the".

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

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker. Sir, I am speaking now on the amendment to the amendment. The Member for Anson has accused the S.P.A. of forming an alliance with the P.A.P. It is indeed a matter which I can only laugh off, because if the record of the debates in this House were to show correctly - as I am sure Hansard will show it correctly - it was first the S.P.A. and now the Alliance that have provided the most responsible opposition to the P.A.P. Government. We do not believe in irresponsible opposition. We believe that the interest of the country should come first and not the Party.

Sir, in the debate on the Government agreement with the Government of the Federation of Malaya (Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961), it was very clear that the Parties represented in this Assembly, apart from the Alliance, were playing party politics. Although each and every Party did say that they were for a closer relationship, for reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, there were different views as to the manner in which this reunification should take place.

On the question of the referendum, I think everyone has agreed that it will have to be conducted, to consult the electorate on the constitutional proposals vis a vis the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Here again, unfortunately, all the Parties represented in this Assembly, apart from the Alliance, still continue to play party politics. We who are a responsible Opposition sometimes can be said to be amused at the play of party politics. We have here the Member for Anson who moved an amendment to the amendment, and he has voted with the Barisan Sosialis in defeating his own amendment! If the amendment to the amendment to the amendment had succeeded, his own amendment would have been defeated. He voted with the Barisan Sosialis because it is popular, since the Workers' Party has -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. Surely that is wrong and it should be corrected.

Mr Speaker: Is the Member indicating that his vote has been recorded wrongly? The Member for Anson voted `aye' in favour of the deletion of the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya". Is that his complains?

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the deletion was for the purpose of clarification of the word "reunification". A man can accept an amendment to his amendment without in any way denying an amendment to his motion.

Mr Speaker: It is a point of argument. Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It could be that the lateness of the hour must be having some effect on some of us who have been sitting here since 2.30 p.m. But the record will show that the Member for Anson voted for an amendment to defeat his own amendment. Perhaps, Sir, the Member for Anson did not know what he was doing and we can feel sorry for his state of mind.

An hon. Member: Woodbridge Hospital!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The amendment proposed by the Member for Anson says that this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill. If I remember rightly, when the Singapore National Referendum Bill was read a Second time, there was much opposition from the Member for Anson. He has forgotten how he spoke very strongly against the Bill, but he is now prepared to welcome it.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. I welcomed the principle of the Bill and voted in favour of it.

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order. It is a point of the Member being misrepresented.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, all we want to say, as a responsible Opposition, is that a referendum is necessary, the Government is committed to it, and the introduction of the Referendum Bill is a clear indication that a referendum is to be conducted. But we will not play party politics on an issue that concerns the very livelihood of the people of Singapore. The Alliance will abstain on all amendments to the amendment as well as on the amendment to the original motion.

Mr Speaker: We are on the amendment of the Member for Anson - the amendment to the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. The first Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," - that is to say, the words:

`in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable'.

Amendment to the amendment negatived.

Mr Speaker: We are back to the amendment proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. The original Question was,

"That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.".

Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end, and insert-

"in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia".

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

10.55 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Government. From the Government's intention of deleting the words from the motion of the Member for Anson, we can clearly see their motive. In the Government amendment, there is a word which has caught my attention. This word is "reunification" in the phrase "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya". In this amendment of the Government, they have not used the word "merger", which means that the Government clearly understand that the people of Singapore have already seen through the P.A.P. type of merger. Therefore, they do not dare mention now the word merger". Now they use another word, namely, "reunification" in its stead, in order to deceive the people of Singapore. It was because of this that we moved our amendment to delete that word "reunification".

10.59 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr JOHN MAMMEN) in the Chair]

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): From the Government's amendment, we see that they intend to delete the last part of the motion proposed by the Member for Anson - that is, the words "the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed". Why should the Government want to delete such a phrase? This is because the P.A.P. Government are not prepared to accept the views of the people. It also goes to show that they are now under pressure to hold such a national referendum unwillingly. The Government's intention of deleting such a phrase shows that they have no confidence in the result of the coming national referendum. From this, it can also be seen what purpose is the national referendum if the Government are not sincere about the so-called national referendum. They want to play the political game.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this question of a national referendum is one which touches on merger and which affects our people. The original motion of the Member for Anson states "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore...". This wording clearly shows that the mover of this motion is taking this issue above party politics. But the Government have another attitude towards it. From the amendment moved by the Government, we can see that the holding of a nationa1 referendum is to play party politics and it will be conducted on that line. If the Government are not trying to play party politics, why cannot they accept the original motion, that is to say, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore" of certain things?

Mr Deputy Speaker, another reason why we cannot accept the amendment by the Government is that before the National Referendum Bill is passed we must get an assurance that it will accept the views of the Opposition Parties to delete certain unreasonable provisions in the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob bin Mohamed): On a point of order, Sir. (In Malay): The translation system is out of order. The Malay translation is not coming through. Or is it that my earphone only is affected?

Mr David Marshall: Come over and have mine!

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order. It appears that the whole row is affected. I suggest that we suspend for ten minutes. I suspend this sitting until a quarter-past eleven o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 11.06 p.m. until 11.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 11.15 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying just now that the amendment moved by the Government was intended to use the word "reunification" to replace the word "merger". This is the type of constitutional relationship envisaged in the White Paper. They now dare not use the word "merger", because the word "merger" has already been seen through by the people for what it means. Can the proposals in the White Paper, which outlines the plan for merger between Singapore and Malaya, be truly called a kind of reunification? Can the proposals in the White Paper achieve a reunification or merger? The answer is no. Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, also did not use the word "reunification" to describe the proposals in the White Paper. What he said was a type of closer relationship. Only this and nothing more. From this, it can be seen that the P.A.P. Government are now trying to use another term to deceive the people so that an unequal type of merger, as in the White Paper, can be accepted.

Mr Speaker, in the amendment moved by the Government, there is another term used. That is, the "mode and manner," which refers to the mode and manner of merger. Why do the Government not dare to express clearly, by their wording in the White Paper, the merger proposed by them? Why should they use this new term in its stead?

Just now the Member for Hong Lim, in the course of his speech, also correctly pointed out what the Prime Minister said on the 12th of October last year. In answer to the leaders of all the political Parties, he said in his letter that the people would' be consulted on whether they accepted or rejected the White Paper proposals on merger. But from the amendment of the Government, we can see that they intend to eat their own words. The Government have the intention of evading what the Prime Minister promised or guaranteed to the leaders of the political Parties represented in this Assembly. From the terms of the Government's amendment, we can see that not only have the Government no confidence in the national referendum, but they have also no confidence in their own merger proposals as contained in the White Paper. The Government have also no confidence in the parliamentary system of consulting the people for their opinions. If the Government do not like the people to freely express their views; if the Government will not allow the people to fully express their views; and if also the Government want the people to accept their type of merger as outlined in the White Paper, then it would be better that the Government should not waste so many thousands of dollars to carry out this type of national referendum.

I would like to point out that if the Government are determined not to abide by the opinions of the people; if they are not prepared to act according to the will of the people; if they will not allow the people to express freely and correctly their own views; and if they like to use deceiving methods to carry through their type of merger, then it will cause very serious consequences to our State. If this misfortune should happen, the Government should bear all the responsibilities.

11.25 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, there are times when democracy cannot be practised. There are places where we can see that parliamentary democracy is not successful, and there is a scrambling for power by the military in order to safeguard the security of the State. This is necessary when the lives of the people are in difficulties, or when the machinations of irresponsible leaders who have no sense of responsibility to their country, or of a group of men who have no real interest in the country in which they are staying, have to be dealt with.

Mr Speaker, we consider a referendum to be a good device for the purpose of consulting the people. But, as has been explained by my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, this issue which we are discussing is being played about in some irresponsible quarters.

11.26 p.m.

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

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): We have followed the debate on merger in this Assembly. I believe the people of Singapore, who did not understand the debate, could see clearly the good and the bad points about the matters discussed in this Assembly. But there are some quarters in this Assembly who carry out irresponsible activities. They are not responsible to this country and they do not wish the people to have a prosperous and peaceful country. I believe the type of merger they demand today is something in which they themselves do not believe, because what they really want is that there should not be any merger. However, they are not disposed to; state clearly that they do not want merger. They only hide behind the issue of the referendum and so on. Some have raised this issue as a matter of party politics. What they really want, in my view, if they can achieve it is a large field wherein they can gather all the people in order to arrive at a decision on an issue. What we are now discussing seems to be producing no results. In this respect, it appears that the Barisan Sosialis are actively carrying out a dangerous line of propaganda which has given rise to communalism. If they continue to persist in this line, it will create an undesirable situation for the people of Singapore.

I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that every Member of this Assembly will discuss our problem sanely, because there is no other way to improve the situation. We have hoped there should be a merger. But now, the means of achieving merger is through a referendum, and we see this issue being played about. As emphasised by my colleague, we on our part will not take part in the voting because we regard this matter as a part of party politics.

11.33 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this motion which the Member for Anson is raising, and which affects our future generation and their future, seeks to - [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): I can hear quite clearly.

Mr David Marshall: I am afraid for the last minute or two I have not heard anything, but I will continue, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: This line.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not quite hear what the Member for Anson said just now.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was saying that the intention of the motion brought forward by the Member for Anson is to assure that the people can express their views on the question of merger and the question of Malaysia. However, unfortunately, when the motion was amended by the Government, it has caused an unnecessary debate. If both sides of the House believe that democracy can be practised in this State, then I think the question is very simple.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): The debate arising from the amendment by the Government is unnecessary. For example, in the amendment by the Government, there is one sentence which says that the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya is inevitable. My point is that since we all eat rice, if the P.A.P. Government put some poison in the rice and if they want us to eat it, then, of course, we will refuse to eat it. When the Government put forward their White Paper merger proposals, some of them are not acceptable to the Opposition. We support the concept of merger. We do not want to give the Government the excuse to say that we are opposed to merger and the concept of Malaysia. This has been our stand. But the behaviour of the P.A.P. reminds me of the Japanese occupation in Singapore. During that period the Japanese troops committed atrocities in this country which were very similar to what the P.A.P. are doing today.

There is no point in opposing a national referendum. Let me quote some incidents. During the Japanese occupation, the atrocities and barbarities committed by the Japanese troops could be likened to what the P.A.P. are doing today. At that time there were many gambling dens in Singapore. There was a kind of gambling by the Chinese known as "fan tan". This kind of gambling -

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: On a point of order?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): On a point of order. This is not relevant to the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. The hon. Member is just giving a comparison. If he goes into details and is out of order, then I will pull him up.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): In this kind of gambling the figures 1, 2, 3, 4 are written. At one time the Japanese Army went to gamble in these gambling dens. The result was that they lost all their money. The next day they thought of a scheme and went and gambled again. They used only chips on the table, no actual money. Then the chips would be counted in fours, and if there was only one chip remaining at the end, that would be No. 1; if there were two chips remaining, that would be No. 2; if there were three chips remaining, then it would be No. 3; and if there were four remaining at the end, it would be No. 4. But the unreasonable and barbaric Japanese soldiers on this particular day forcibly asked the gambling den operators not to count in fours but in twos, so that they could stake on No. 1 and No. 2, because then the result would be either 1 or 2. So they were in a very advantageous position to win the game. The method of referendum gives me the impression that it is quite similar to how the Japanese soldiers behaved in the gambling dens.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because of the debate arising out of the question of merger, the friendship which has existed between Singapore and the Federation for a long time has now become very unstable. This is regrettable because we in the Opposition and the Government both are quite unanimous in supporting the concept of merger. But because we do not agree with the Government on the method and form of merger, there is the question of closing down the causeway, which has given rise to fear among the people of Singapore. So we would urge the Government, if they do believe in parliamentary democracy, to do this simple thing - let the people of Singapore choose either of these two alternatives - one, whether the people of Singapore are prepared to accept the merger proposals as contained in the White Paper, or whether they are opposed to those proposals. It is as simple as that. There is no need for any argument or debate. Now, if the P.A.P. do not do this, then, in my opinion, they do not dare to face the people. That is why they are thinking of the method which I have already described, and which the Japanese soldiers used in the gambling dens. This behaviour of the P.A.P. has given me the opportunity to recollect that incident.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

11.45 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today the Government has moved an amendment to the motion tabled by the Member for Anson. We can see clearly that the present P.A.P. Government is quite similar to Hitler's Government in the past. There is only this difference between them. Hitler was able to mobilise all his military forces to suppress nearly all the people of the world whereas the P.A.P. cannot do so. If the P.A.P. were to have such military forces at its disposal, I believe that it would not hesitate to make use of them to force the people of Singapore into accepting the retrogressive constitutional arrangements; but because it does not have the military forces that Hitler had, it has attempted to introduce all sorts of devices to achieve constitutional arrangements which are not in the interest of the people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, some Government Members have contradicted their own statements. For example, the Minister for Culture, when touching on the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, said that the Government cannot put only one question - the question of the White Paper on merger - in the referendum because, if the Government should do so, then the Assembly would be involved and committed to the framing of the question in the referendum.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper on the merger proposals was debated in a motion moved by the Government in this House. Since then, the Ministers of the Government have stressed in the newspapers, at Press interviews and radio forums, and through all forms of publicity facilities, the point that the future constitutional arrangements would be referred to the people for a final decision. In other words, Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961 would be referred to the people for a decision as to whether they accept the merger proposals agreed between the P.A.P, and the Federation Government. So we can clearly see today in this House that there is a very simple question to be answered by the people of Singapore. This question is one where a yes or no is required to the White Paper proposals on merger. It is not a matter of putting various questions to the people for a decision. The P.A.P. knows this very well. It also knows that, as far as the people of Singapore are concerned, the White Paper proposals on merger are not acceptable. That is why the Government has not got the guts to put down the White Paper proposals on merger in the ballot paper. If the Government is sincere in wanting to refer this issue in a referendum -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I would like to remind the hon. Member that at the present moment we are debating the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. If he wanted to debate the White Paper, the proper time would have been when the Member for Queenstown moved an amendment to Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am now trying to make you understand this, that the amendment of the Government concerns the "mode and manner" of reunification of Singapore and the Federation. The House has discussed this question of the "mode and manner" as contained in the White Paper. Where is the other "mode and manner" for the decision of the people? If the Government has the courage, then I will challenge it to amend the motion of the Member for Anson `by using the words "White Paper" therein, and then refer the matter to the people in a referendum.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question before this House and before the people is very simple. The amendment of the Government has indicated to the people of Singapore that more than one question will be put in the national referendum for a decision, because the P.A.P. knows that the people of Singapore treat the White Paper like poison. If the P.A.P. were to ask the people whether they wanted to drink poison - that is to say, whether they wanted the White Paper proposals on merger - I am quite sure that 100 per cent of the people in Singapore would reject them; but because the Prime Minister on many occasions has promised to refer this matter to the people for a decision, the Government has to make use of a democratic device and take advantage of democratic forms to deceive the people of Singapore into believing that their future is to be decided by themselves and not by the P.A.P. The P.A.P. is cunningly trying to make use of more than one question for a decision by the people. If the P.A.P. has the confidence of the people and if it has given publicity to the advantages of the White Paper on merger and Malaysia, then I believe the people of Singapore, who are reasonable and rational, will consider carefully the speeches and arguments of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. has said that the White Paper on merger is good and advantageous to the people of Singapore, which is tantamount to saying that the P.A.P. has confidence in the people. If that is so, then there is every reason to believe that the P.A.P, should put one question to the people in a referendum, and that is whether the White Paper on merger is acceptable to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill says the Alliance has never indulged in party politics. He claims that his Party is looking after the interests of the whole country. I do not understand what he means by "the interest of the country". I do not know whether he has in mind the interest of the people. By the interest of the country, does he mean the interest of the minority leadership of the P.A.P. and the leaders of the Alliance?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. and the Alliance held different political views in the past, but now they seem to have come to some agreement. The Member for Cairnhill wants to convey the impression that the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis is only in the interest of an individual Party instead of in the national interest. I wish to inform him that we look after not only the interest of the country, but also the interest of the people of Singapore, including the interest of their children.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the coming national referendum and the proposed constitutional arrangements cannot be conducted on a basis of equality, then, as the Member for Southern Islands has said, suspicions and fears will inevitably arise in the minds of the various communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is midnight.