REFERENDUM ON REUNIFICATION OF SINGAPORE AND FEDERATION OF MALAYA

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this House resolves that the peope of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide between the alternatives of reunification on the basis of:

(a) the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of l961 giving Singapore autonomy in education and labour; or

(b) a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya."

Since which an amendment has been proposed,

In line 3, to leave out from "their" to the end and insert ---

"wishes on the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide whether they accept or reject the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate may range over the amendment* standing in the name of the Member for Cairnhill, Item 3+ and Item 4++ of the Order Paper.

*The amendment reads as follows:

At end, to add 'or

(c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories.

+Item 3, in the names of the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown, reads as follows:

That this Assembly calls upon the Government to make arrangements (a) to ascertain the will of the people of Singapore in respect of the proposed constitutional changes by way of a referendum on the following question only: "Do you accept the proposed closer constitutional relations with the Federation of Malaya as incorporated in Command Paper No 33 of 1961, a copy of which is attached to the Order for this Referendum "; and (b) to name Polling Day as a day four weeks from the date of the Order therefor.

++Item 4, in the names of the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Upper Serangoon, reads as follows:

That this House condemns the Government for its dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition's stand on the Merger issue, whereby it seeks to mislead and confuse the people in the forthcoming referendum.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, to continue with my speech from last night, once again I wish to express my surprise at the attitude of some of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, especially the Member for Queenstown, who in their arguments attempted to hide their nefarious designs with flimsy pretexts. They cannot expect to hide the carcass of an elephant by covering it up with a winnowing pan, as the proverb says. Some of their arguments were based on terms such as a sell-out merger, and so on, which I think will not be expressed by people who are normal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear now, without my having to do it, they have exposed themselves and their designs. The Member for Queenstown stated yesterday that before the Anson by-election the people had not expressed their desire to merge with the Federation of Malaya. They thought that that would strengthen their argument that Singapore is not yet ripe for merger with the Federation of Malaya. If at all, this is in line with the designs of the Communists who hope that their Party will control the whole of Malaya at which time they expect to do as they please with the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya.

Is it true to say that the P.A.P. have no mandate to carry out merger, as was alleged by the Member for Queenstown?

In reply, permit me to ask them to open their minds wide and to try to recall their pledges before the 1959 elections were held. Let me put it to them that in 1954 when the P.A.P. was formed, the first manifesto was issued at its inaugural meeting. I will read page 4 of the Malay version thereof. This was in 1954 before the Federation of Malaya achieved its independence.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member read that passage again? I think he was reading too fast. There was some difficulty about translation. Will he read that passage again slowly?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak a little further from the microphone. On page 4, it says:

'Our Party opposes the new constitutions to be inaugurated in the Federation and Singapore because they still retain the essential features of colonialism. We shall use every constitutional means to get a constitution for an independent and democratic State, one which recognises the unity of Singapore and the Federation and which places the ultimate control over the affairs of this country in the hands of a Government elected by its nationals and responsible only to them.'

The objectives of Petir to bring about merger with the Federation of Malaya came to life at the inaugural meeting of the P.A.P. in 1954. Then in 1958, after the Federation of Malaya achieved its independence, the Executive Committee of the P.A.P. issued its Fourth Souvenir which was passed by the General Meeting as the basis of its future policy. This is my answer to the Member's allegation. I shall read the Malay version on page 3.

`(1) to end colonialism and establish an independent national State of Malaya, comprising the territories now known as the Federation of Malaya and the Colony of Singapore; to create a democratic and united Government of Malaya (here, it includes Singapore] based on universal adult suffrage of all those who are born in Malaya or who have adopted Malayan nationality.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is our basic policy that is upheld by every loyal member of the P.A.P. and it is our duty to carry it out in the interest of our people. When the elections came in 1959, as I said yesterday, the P.A.P. had placed foremost in its manifesto the fact of wanting to strive for independence through merger with the Federation of Malaya. With these basic policies and with what is contained in this manifesto, we went to the people in 1959 and it was by virtue of this manifesto that we were duly elected by the people by a big majority and returned to this Assembly with a total vote of about 54 per cent.

Mr Speaker, if the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O., who have obtained a few seats, claim that in their manifesto they have merger as a platform, it will be true, therefore, that those people who want merger number more than 54 per cent and therefore it is logical to assume that they expect their representatives to fight for merger. With this victory, Mr Speaker, Sir, would anyone say now that we have no mandate to bring about merger, as was alleged we did not have, as we heard in this Assembly yesterday? Have they forgotten this fact or have they not read the Anniversary Souvenir? They should not continue to remain in this House because they were elected in the name of the P.A.P. who promised to fight for merger, but these people have since run away from the P.A.P. Wherein lies the value of their self-respect, Mr Speaker, Sir? And this becomes a challenge and strengthens our firm desire to fight for independence through merger with the Federation of Malaya. I feel, Mr Speaker, that there are many tainted Reds who accuse us of having no mandate from the people. This is only to wreck our efforts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have known them long in the field of politics since October 1954; so I know their tactics well. When these people wish to besmirch their opponents, they will find ways and means to do so - whether it is right or wrong. So I say they cannot stand being stared at in the face. The objective of achieving merger was regarded as a long-term objective. But according to what the Member for Queenstown said yesterday, in the speeches of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, no mention was made of merger. The changes that will take place and are taking place in the political arena are not something which anybody can foretell. Merger will soon be a fact. The Member for Queenstown, in moving his amendment, stated that this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their wishes on the inevitable reunification of the two territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, this sentence which is the subject of the Member's amendment clearly shows his acceptance of the fact that reunification is inevitable. Therefore, our society is confused. Mr Speaker, Sir, if reunification is inevitable, the question then arises: what is the mode and manner of bringing about the reunification acceptable to our friends in the Federation? Mr Speaker, Sir, in all sincerity, once again, I must express my great surprise; if the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues are sincere and are truly keen to bring about the reunification of these two territories, they will surely not attempt to bring about this amendment. It is because this amendment will definitely be defeated that they have tabled other amendments and other motions. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is merely to bait the hook in order to fish in troubled waters. From this it becomes abundantly clear who are the people who waver and shift their stand; and who are the political adventurers who have exerted every effort to bring about confusion to the people. We realise and recognise, Mr Speaker, that our island State with its teeming population comprises various races of various cultures and religions. With full earnestness and sincerity, we should bear in mind these facts. We must carry out our objective in the true interest and welfare of the people to bring about prosperity and harmony. Mr Speaker, Sir, in carrying out its objective, the Government is always firm in its stand. The Government has carried out negotiations with the Government of the Federation of Malaya to get a suitable basis which will not be detrimental to any Party and which will be acceptable to the majority of the people in both territories - fully respecting our own rights and privileges. As a result of that, Command Paper No. 33 came into being. Mr Speaker, all these efforts have gone on smoothly and successfully but a few political adventurers have stepped forward to try to belittle these successes in order to wreck the merger that is to come.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another problem faces us because everyone of us wants merger. The mode and manner of bringing about merger is either as has been spelt out in the White Paper Command No. 33; or a complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis with other eleven States; or is it to be that we are to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms of the Borneo territories? Do they want to reject all these three alternatives and place Singapore in jeopardy? I am truly confused, Mr Speaker, Sir, to see the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. As I see it, it is not the alternatives for bringing about merger that is the crux of the matter; it is the desire to wreck merger itself. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, if merger is wrecked, then those people who claim themselves to be fighters for democracy and fighters against colonialism are the real colonial stooges who wish to place Singapore under the feet of the colonial power. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the true position regarding these people. They would like to appear as sheep when they are actually wolves. I would like to reiterate that we will fight colonialism whether it be from the West or from the East.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because of this, in the name of our sacred fight in the interests of the people in this State of ours, and in the interests of the welfare of our future generations, I would urge upon Members of this Assembly to heed this call: if you have gone astray, if you have gone off the path, pray do come back to the main road. At the same time, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to sound a word of warning. If we are true representatives of the people, fighting for the interests of the people, let us prove our sincerity. I reiterate once more, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we have taken a wrong step as individuals, the danger that may befall us would only affect our own family, but if we make a serious mistake as political leaders responsible to the people, then the danger is that the consequences will be suffered by the people as a whole. And great suffering will be borne by the generations yet unborn.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, to cut my speech short, I say once again, if you have gone off the path, do come back to the main road, but if you are truly fighting for merger, let us have proof of it. We should in all our efforts be sincere and not act like the proverbial crab in the Malay saying, which asks its baby crab to walk straight ahead while she, the mother crab herself, walks sideways.

6.03 p.m.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, when we were debating the Referendum Bill we did say that the P.A.P. was going to pose two unacceptable questions to the people of Singapore to choose. What we said before has now become true. It is a tragedy for the P.A.P. Government who, having known that the people do not want them anymore, are now trying to sell the people of Singapore to the Federation of Malaya, first conditionally, then unconditionally.

Sir, it is also a tragedy for our people to have such an irresponsible Government who now force them to accept two unacceptable types of merger.

Sir, the White Paper on merger of the P.A.P. was debated in this House. Since it was debated and approved in this House, it is only right and proper for the P.A.P. Government to ask the people whether or not they accept the White Paper on merger proposed by the P.A.P. but approved in this Assembly. It is only by this that the democratic right of the people can be exercised.

The people and the Opposition will not blame the P.A.P. Government for its undemocratic and irresponsible attitude if it is prepared to allow our people to exercise their basic democratic right by giving them a chance to say "Yes" or "No" to the White Paper proposals.

The Government not only do not allow our people to say "Yes" or "No" to the White Paper on merger, but they are also even prepared to pose another type of merger which is even worse than the White Paper on merger by which the Government can force the people to be trapped in the referendum plot.

Sir, it is very irresponsible for the P.A.P. Government to ask the people to choose a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other 11 states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya. This question has not been discussed and debated in this Assembly. Therefore, it is not right and it is improper for the P.A.P. Government to bring up this question for our people to choose. Their aim is clear. They try to trap the people by forcing them to choose between the White Paper on merger and unconditional merger. By this way, they think they can trap the Barisan Sosialis. But they have mistaken the fact that the Barisan Sosialis is a political organisation. It can survive under any form of government.

Sir, the interest of the people is above the interest of any political Party. If the P.A.P. believe in this principle, then it should not pose two such unacceptable questions for the people in order to trap the Barisan Sosialis, because they also trap the people who will suffer most. So the people will not forget the treacherous act which the P.A.P. Government is now doing.

I want to warn the P.A.P. Government that the way they go about it can only create more trouble and more hatred for the Governments of Singapore and the Federation. When the people become anti-government, then, Mr Speaker, Sir, you know what happens.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): What happens?

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Sir, the people of Singapore and the Barisan Sosialis sincerely believe that a just society can be created and won over by peaceful and constitutional means. If the people are deprived of the right to say "Yes" or "No" to the proposed constitutional changes of their country by peaceful means, then what else can the people do?

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Ulu Pandan): By force?

Mr Teo Hock Guan: The Prime Minister's motion is against normal democratic practice. The Government think that the people are sure to vote for the White Paper on merger, then the Barisan Sosialis will be finished.

Sir, the matter is not as simple as that. If merger is being carried through by force against the wishes of the people, then the people will suffer under such merger. Then any political Party may stand up and fight for the abolition of the White Paper on merger, and in such a situation the people of Singapore are sure to stand behind this political Party which represents them. Then a very complicated issue is sure to arise.

Sir, our amendment seeks to protect the basic right of the people that they should be given a chance to say "Yes" or "No" to the White Paper on merger. It can also prevent any unexpected disaster they may cause under such an undemocratic sell-out merger.

As you are aware, Sir, under the White Paper on merger we will have to hand over our rights and privileges, which we are now enjoying, to the Federation of Malaya for nothing; Sir, for nothing.

It is bad for our people. But the Government say that it is good. Since they say it is good, then let the people choose. But the Government will not want. They say if you do not want our P.A.P. type of merger, then you can choose unconditional merger. By their twists and turns they say merger is inevitable. Their simple logic is this: To die is inevitable; therefore you must die by shooting yourself with a gun; or you must die by hanging yourself with a rope.

Sir, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister in his recent radio talk on merger did mention the referendum in Newfoundland. He said that the people in Newfoundland, when deciding their constitutional changes, were also not allowed to say "Yes" or "No" in that referendum.

Sir, he was telling a lie to the people of Singapore, because the people there were actually given a chance to say "Yes" or "No" in a different form. They were given three questions to choose from. One, to merge with Canada; second, to become independent; and third, to remain a British colony.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): That is what you want.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Sir, let us say they voted against one and two. But let us put the questions this way. One, do you want to merge with Canada or not? Second, do you want to become independent or not? But if they vote against these two, that means they want to remain in a British colony. That proves the people of Newfoundland were actually given a chance to say "Yes" or "No" to decide their future.

Mr Byrne: You have to decide now.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Sir, now the people of Newfoundland are treated equally as citizens of Canada, but in this P.A.P. type of merger the citizens of Singapore are not going to be treated as citizens of the Federation.

Sir, the Government has stated that it has fought a special privilege for the people of Singapore, that is, the privilege of autonomy in labour and education, hut they have forgotten the fact that the so-called privilege is ours which we are now enjoying, it is not a special gift offered to us. This so-called special privilege of autonomy in labour and education, although in name is in the hands of the people of Singapore, in fact, is in the hands of the Government of the Federation, because the Government machinery that controls these two departments is in the hands of the Federation Government. In other words, when merger takes place conditionally or unconditionally and under any circumstances, the people of Singapore do not gain anything but they lose everything, including the basic rights of the people.

We oppose the Prime Minister's motion firstly because the citizens of Singapore cannot automatically become the citizens of the Federation; secondly, because we cannot have proportional representation in the Federal Parliament; and, thirdly, because the citizens of Singapore cannot enjoy the same rights as those enjoyed by the people of Federation; and, fourthly, because the voters are deprived of the right to say "Yes" or "No" to the questions or question posed to them. This type of merger can do nothing good to the people. But it will make Singapore a colony of the Federations.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened with some astonishment to what the Member for Changi said. It is obvious from his very puerile statements that he has not even understood the basic elements of what appears in the White Paper, the basic elements of the Federal Constitution and the simplest elements of parliamentary democracy. Sir, I am not going to waste the time of the House in rebutting his arguments, but I want to take this motion before the House in a very serious light and consider certain basic issues involved.

Sir, it is clear from what has been said in this Assembly that the simple issue of the alternative merger proposal to be presented in the referendum is citizenship. What will happen to the citizens of Singapore under the alternative form of merger? These are important matters and I want to discuss them at length. I also want to discuss purely for the sake of argument, what happens to Singapore citizens if the Barisan type of merger with automatic conversion is implemented by some miracle. But first, Sir, let me deal with what happens to Singapore citizens after merger in accordance with the White Paper proposals. The Barisan Sosialis keep on repeating the falsehood that Singapore citizens will become second-class citizens, but they have never stated in what way Singapore citizens will become second-class citizens. They have not given one concrete instance of what rights and privileges the Singapore citizens would lose under the White Paper form of merger. We repeatedly asked them to answer this question. Each time they evaded the issue. I hope that during this debate the Barisan Sosialis Members will give a straightforward answer to this straightforward question. I say, Sir, that it is an outrageous falsehood to say that Singapore citizens will become second-class citizens after merger in accordance with the White Paper proposals. Now, if there are people who will not take my word for it, then may I refer them to what the Member for Anson has said about second-class citizens, and I quote him from Hansard of 23rd November, 1961, column 577. Sir, he said:

`The leader of the Barisan Sosialis spoke of second-class citizenship, and I completely agree with the Minister for Culture that there ain't no such animal". Of course, there is not. There is no question of second-class citizenship.'

Sir, that was in November 1961 and on the 28th of June, 1962, the Member for Anson reaffirmed his view in this very Assembly.

Mr David Marshall: I have not changed my view.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I have never said he has changed his view, Mr Speaker, Sir, I said he has reaffirmed his view. Now everybody knows that if, in fact, Singapore citizens become second class citizens under our merger proposals, then the Member for Anson, as a lawyer, will be able to find real solid legal arguments to prove his point. The fact of the matter is that he has not done so, nor can the Barisan Sosialis present any argument or evidence to support their charge of second-class citizenship.

Sir, the truth of, the matter is that Singapore citizens retain all the rights that they now possess. In addition, they acquire new rights as nationals of the new Federation. Now, let me explain. A Singapore citizen now enjoys certain basic political rights. He has a right of franchise, that is, he has a right to choose who shall govern Singapore. He has a right to stand for election, and as a citizen he enjoys certain real and concrete privileges in the State of Singapore. He is eligible to apply for low-rent houses built by the Government. His children enjoy the right to free primary education; and if they are clever, they can get free education right up to university level. As a Singapore citizen he can hold office in the Government, and there is a full range of welfare services available to him. Sir, these are the nights and privileges of a Singapore citizen as they now stand. He loses none of these rights after merger. Not only he retains these rights after merger according to the White Paper proposals, but he acquires new ones. He has a right to vote for representatives to the Central Parliament. He has a right to stand for election to the Central Parliament. In addition, he acquires the status of a national of the new Federation. As a national of the new Federation, the rights he enjoys are equal in all respects to those of the Federation citizens who will also be nationals of the new Federation. These rights are defined in various Articles of the Federal Constitution. The more important ones are Articles 8, 9, 10, 47, 119 and 123. These deal with equality before the law, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, assembly and association, freedom of religion, qualifications for membership of Parliament, qualifications of electors and qualifications of judges before the Supreme Court. I want to draw special attention to Article 8 (2) which reads:

`Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.'

As the Prime Minister said in the debate on merger last year, the rights of a Singapore citizen and a Malayan national will be incorporated in the revised Constitution of the Federation, and this Article will then guarantee him a status of complete equality with all other citizens. The only difference between citizens of the Federation and citizens of Singapore is that they will elect and be elected to the Central Parliament in their respective territories. Those in the Federation will vote in the Federation, and those in Singapore will vote in Singapore for representatives to the Central Parliament. Similarly, if they want to stand for election, they will do so in their respective territories. These are the only differences. There is no inequality here and therefore no question of second-class status under the White Paper merger proposals.

Sir, I will now deal with what happens to Singapore citizens under complete merger for Singapore as a constituent State of the Federation. First, I wish to deal with the extraordinary claim made by the Member for Queenstown last night that complete merger of the Penang or Malacca type has never been advanced by the Barisan Sosialis. He said, and I quote the transcript of yesterday's Assembly sitting at page 41 second last paragraph. [Vol. 19 No. 1, col. 62]. He said:

`Let me now expose why the P.A.P. have wanted to put in this so-called Penang type merger, why they invented this Penang type merger. There are two good reasons for the P.A.P. First, the P.A.P. want an excuse to justify posing two questions to the people in the referendum.'

And then in page 42, second paragraph, second sentence [col. 63]:

`The P.A.P. object is to identify the Barisan Sosialis with the unacceptable fictitious Penang type merger.'

Sir, I am amazed to learn that the P.A.P. invented the Penang type of merger. The Member for Queenstown must have suffered from a temporary mental blackout when he said this, for it was he who proposed this form of merger in a letter from him to the Leader of the House dated 1st September, 1961. Now this letter has been quoted so often that I will not quote it again, but I will cite other evidence in corroboration. Sir, may I read from the Straits Times, 30th August. 1961, page 18, part of a long article on the Barisan stand on merger? And this is what the Barisan stand is as described in the Straits Times:

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

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

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

So it is clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Penang or Malacca type of merger was not invented by the P.A.P. We are quoting statements straight from the horse's mouth. Now, if the Barisan Sosialis do not like the Penang or Malacca type of merger as they now pretend, then they can propose merger like any other State. Even if we regard Penang and Malacca as merely being offered as illustrations, the fact remains that the Barisan Sosialis have come out fully in favour of full and complete merger.

Sir, just to make sure that we the P.A.P. will not be accused in future of inventing further fictitious types of complete merger, may I be permitted to quote several statements of Barisan leaders which prove beyond all doubt that they wanted complete merger with the Federation? My first quotation is from the typescript of the famous radio forum on the 21st September, and I quote from page six of the typescript with the Member for Queenstown saying in very forthright terms:

`We come out with our stand, straightforward, one and all the time the same, namely, that we are asking for full complete merger with the Federation, with Singapore coming in as the twelfth State of the Federation. Only in that way can you call it merger.'.

Now, Sir, in a letter to our Party Chairman, the Deputy Prime Minister, dated the 11th September. 1961, the Member for Queenstown said:

`We note with some satisfaction that following the proposal for the constitutional future, the P.A.P. Government has shifted its stand and is now prepared to put forward complete merger as an alternative to its own proposal.'.

Sir, they say that they are very satisfied that we are prepared to put forward an alternative of complete merger. So why all this fuss and bother when we are doing so now? Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown in Hansard of 20th November, 1961, column 314, said in this Assembly:

`Sir, we have already stated in the most unequivocal terms that we are fully prepared to accept a complete merger, and we will only be too glad to say "yes" if the Tunku says tomorrow that we should have complete merger.'.

Now, Sir, lest it be thought that the Member for Queenstown was speaking out of turn - and one must admit that he does that very frequently - I will quote what the real Party boss said on this subject. I will quote Mr Lim Ching Siong in the Straits Times dated 18th September, 1961, on his Party stand on merger. Mr Lim was quoted as follows:

`Mr Lim said that recently critics had described the Panty as anti-merger and as being prepared to accept merger only as an alternative.'.

Now, he asked the question:

`How can anyone who likes only half-boiled potatoes accuse those who like boiled potatoes of being people who do not like potatoes? We are serious and genuine in our stand for full and complete merger. If the Federation Government says tomorrow that they will accept us as an integral part of the Federation, we will only be too glad to support it whole-heartedly.'.

So now, Sir, when we offer them fully boiled potatoes, they say they never wanted it and they wanted something else. No, obviously they are up to some game. What is this game, Mr Speaker, Sir? To understand this, let us examine what the words "full and complete merger" mean. The Member for Anson has added another adjective "unconditional" merger to make the meaning even clearer. Therefore, when you talk of full and complete and unconditional merger as a constituent State of the Federation, you join in on the same terms enjoyed by any of the present eleven States. Sir, you can ask for more. The Barisan have asked for more. The Workers' Party have asked for more. But if these terms are rejected, then it is not open to them to grumble and say that they have been deprived of anything to which they were entitled. This is a proposition which is self-evident even to a schoolboy. Now, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis having come out with this clear and unambiguous demand for complete merger discovered that they had made a serious mistake and then they begin to attach conditions. Now, Sir, it is no use for them to say that they have not made a mistake, for their allies in the anti-merger campaign, the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson, publicly declared in a radio forum on the 14th of June, 1962, that the Barisan Sosialis had made a mistake. What was this mistake? The Barisan Sosialis realise ---

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir, because he said that I have publicly declared, quoting me, that the Barisan had made a mistake. I said, "If they had made a mistake. . .". That was the commencement of the sentence, and I did quote it yesterday, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, this matter has been gone through already, and he said that not only did they make a mistake but he said, "It is withdrawn, it is withdrawn," as he claimed on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis. Now the Barisan realise that complete merger means that the citizenship laws of the Federation must apply to Singapore. Those who were not born in Singapore will have to re-apply in accordance with the laws of the Federation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Nonsense!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, that is a most astonishing interjection, but I will deal with that point, Sir. Now, they therefore say that Singapore citizens must automatically convert to be Federal citizens and they say that Article 22 of the Federation Constitution makes this possible. Now, Sir, when we discuss what is possible and what is not possible, I think everyone will agree that it is only proper that we talk in terms of actual possibilities and not in terms of academic possibilities. And here, the position is clear beyond doubt. The Member for Anson has written to the Tunku over this question. He had received a reply from the Tunku which he is rather bashful to publish, but if he still maintains that automatic conversion of citizenship is possible, then we shall be extremely delighted and grateful if he will publish the Tunku's reply. Now, Sir, Mr Lim Ching Siong has also written to the Tunku.

Mr David Marshall: For what?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: But he has not dared to publish the contents of this letter or the Tunku's reply to it, if there is any reply. So these people know what the real position is. Then why do they keep on harping on automatic conversion? Sir, this subject should have been settled last November when the letters exchanged between the Prime Ministers of Singapore and Federation were tabled in the Assembly on 24th November last year. May I quote a passage from the Tunku's letter? He said:

`I would like to emphasise that it cannot be assumed that the analogy of Penang or Malacca is necessarily relevant to the status of Singapore in merger with the Federation. Article 22 of the Federation Constitution makes provision for a merger of new states on terms which do not necessarily have to follow Penang and Malacca which were already members of the Federation when the 1957 Constitution came into force. If the stricter laws of other states were applied to Singapore, Singapore would be entitled to not more than twelve seats since less persons would be eligible for citizenship and consequently for franchise, quite apart from the question of weightage for rural areas.'

So here we have a definitive statement on how Article 22 can be applied in the event of complete merger. Now the Barisan are not happy that Malacca and Penang citizenship laws will apply to Singapore in a complete merger. They want something more favourable and the Tunku has pointed out that the conditions of conversion may well be even stricter than those of Penang and Malacca under complete merger. So in the face of all this, this talk about automatic conversion strikes me as having more than a lunatic tinge about it. The Barisan Sosialis have added this condition with just one intention and that is to frustrate merger. They know that complete and automatic conversion is not possible, and in fact this is why they ask for it. There is one other motive which may be in their minds. By laying stress on automatic conversion into Federal citizenship, they hope to convince the people of Singapore that somehow they are missing something good by not being allowed automatic conversion. Let us examine this aspect very closely. Let us ask ourselves, what in fact would the ordinary citizen gain if automatic conversion were granted? Is he better off than under the White Paper proposals? The answer is `Yes'. He is better off in two respects - and only in two respects. First, he will be able to stand for election in the Federation general election, not only in Singapore, but also in the Federation. This is something not of great value to the average citizen who, if he wants to stand for election to the Central Parliament, can do so in Singapore. The other additional benefit the average citizen gets from automatic conversion is that he will be able to vote more easily in the Federation when he changes his address and moves there. The procedure for registration will be much easier than under the Singapore White Paper proposals. But here again the advantage is not something of fundamental importance. These are the only gains to the citizen, and I challenge the Opposition to cite any other advantage.

Now, Sir, against these two advantages - the ability to vote and stand for election in the Federation and not only in Singapore - what are the losses to Singapore under complete and automatic conversion in full merger? The losses are both extensive and immediate. First, under the complete and unconditional form of merger, only those citizens who are educated, who are sufficiently educated in Malay and English can stand for election to the Singapore Assembly; in other words, large numbers of Singapore citizens will lose their present right to stand for election to their own State Assembly. Next, Chinese schools will have to conform to the Federation's education policy and eventually take the examinations either in English or Malay. Then there is no guarantee for our businessmen that Singapore's free port status will remain so long as we so desire. And 90 per cent of our taxes will be handed over to the Central Government. The Bank of China closes down and imparts of textiles and other goods from China will be severely restricted, thereby disturbing our entrepot trade. Let us therefore strike a balance sheet of profit and loss for the benefit of being able to vote and stand for election both in Singapore and in the Federation to the Central Parliament. The Singapore citizen loses so many of his existing rights and privileges, and all this is assuming that there is full merger with complete and automatic conversion of citizenship.

Now, Sir, if there is no automatic conversion, then some 340,000 registered citizens, or nearly half the electorate, run the risk of losing completely all their political rights. The Barisan Socialis and the Workers' Party can say this cannot be. But the laws of the Federation are there and they will apply to Singapore if we ask for complete and unconditional merger. The Barisan Sosialis make a hue and cry about proportional representation. As regards proportional representation, this is expressly provided for in Article 116 of the Federal Constitution. If in the matter of citizenship, Singapore conforms to the laws of the Federation, then proportional representation follows automatically. On the other hand, if the Barisan want more favourable treatment than is provided for in the Federation citizenship laws, how can they sustain their claim for proportional representation? These matters were raised and discussed during negotiations between the two Governments, and the exchange of letters between the two Prime Ministers to which I have referred deals with this specific point. Our Prime Minister referred to this point in his letter and I quote:

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

Sir, I will now deal with the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. He wanted a third alternative posed, that is, whether Singapore should enter the Federation of Malaysia on terms not less favourable than those of the Borneo States. The Government has announced that it accepts this amendment. There is a lurking fear among some people - a fear that is actively encouraged and fostered by the Barisan Sosialis - that Singapore will somehow be treated as an inferior partner in the Federation of Malaysia. The acceptance, of this amendment by the Government, which shows that such fears are completely unfounded, makes nonsense of the Barisan's claim that we shall be relegated to a second-class status in future Malaysia. Sir, in his more ebullient mood, the Member for Anson has likened both the White Paper proposals and complete and unconditional merger on an equal basis with any of the 11 States to imperialist annexation of the State of Singapore by the Federation of Malaya. These words were uttered in the Select Committee on the Referendum Bill, If there are any persons who are foolish enough to be misguided by the Member for Anson and believe in what he says, then the third choice of equality with the Borneo States offers a way out. But I say that events will show that the White Paper merger proposals, from the point of view of advantages to the citizens of Singapore, will be found far superior to the other two alternatives.

Now, Sir, the stage is set for the final act in the drama of merger and Malaysia. It was the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis who, by their mad campaign of agitation against merger and Malaysia, made merger and Malaysia come to its realisation with greater speed than otherwise would be possible. By launching a wild and indiscriminate campaign against merger and Malaysia, they have opened the eyes of everyone, including the leaders of the Federation of Malaya, to the urgency of speedier establishment of Malaysia. Whatever the form of merger the people of Singapore will choose, the end result will be the same for the Communists and their stooges. Their own mischief making has hastened the very danger to themselves which they wanted to avoid in trying to obstruct merger. We have warned these foolish and opportunistic men, who are now playing with the Communists, of the consequences that will befall them. Our warnings were given in good faith, in an attempt to save these misguided persons from the consequences which we see very clearly ---

An hon. Member: Save yourself.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: --- must follow upon their reckless actions. I regret to say, Sir, that these warnings have gone unheeded. Indeed they were resented and even regarded as threats in an attempt at intimidation. May I once again counsel caution and ask them to take heed of our words before it is too late? Even now it is much later than they think.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, after the British return on the conclusion of the World War, they were forced by the rising nationalism unleashed in this region by the Japanese occupation to bring into existence a new national entity out of the existing separate States of Malaya. The British conveniently kept out Singapore. Singapore is left out, not because of the lack of nationalist feelings but it was thought perhaps that this island State would serve as a Gibraltar of the East - a secure military base isolated from the surrounding turbulence in the political cauldron of Asia; as Gibraltar in the West has been safe and sound despite the wake of rising nationalism in Africa and the surrounding Mediterranean countries. The history of nationalism in Malaya would have taken a different emphasis if the British had not kept Singapore out of the Malayan entity. Singapore was the hot-bed of nationalism in the Malaysian region. However, after 17 years of separation, a new chapter has opened. With the development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles the use of Singapore as a military base is doubtful. On the other hand, if Singapore takes a different political road from the rest of Malaya, it could pose a formidable challenge to the preservation of the status quo of Malaya.

Sir, history cannot be reversed, and, therefore, we today bear witness to all these political debates in this Assembly intermingled with party bickerings which have highlighted the proceedings of this House. We have sought to rise above the petty squabbles that are inevitable in the conflict of party interests, so that the issues that face the people of Singapore can be placed squarely before them away and isolated from the heat of personal rancour and party differences.

Sir, there would have been no White Paper nor referendum law if the British had not separated Singapore 17 years ago from the rest of Malaya. And I would say that today, with very few exceptions, all citizens of Singapore would be citizens of the Federation of Malaya enjoying the same rights and shouldering the same responsibilities. I say this, Sir, quoting no less an authority than our Prime Minister - the Prime Minister of the State of Singapore - who has been instrumental in negotiations with the Federation Government on the White Paper Constitutional proposals. Sir, let us go back to the year 1957. The All-Party Constitutional Talks with the United Kingdom had just been finalised. The Assembly had endorsed the basis for a new Constitution for Singapore. Arising from the All-Party agreement and from negotiations with the United Kingdom, the Singapore Citizenship Bill was introduced in this very House. After the First Reading, the Prime Minister, then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, sitting on the Opposition Bench, gave his approval and support of the Bill in principle, and thereafter the Bill went into Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Select Committee on the Singapore Citizenship Bill, the Chief Minister, the present Member for Cairnhill, moved an amendment to clause 9 of the draft Singapore Citizenship Bill to reduce the residential qualification of applicants for Singapore citizenship from 10 years to 8 years. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer you to column 655 o, the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Bill, dated 28th September, 1957? The Member for Cairnhill, who was then the Chief Minister, said:

`Sir, this ten-year residential qualification was agreed by the All-Party Conference held in February 1957. It was endorsed by the Legislative Assembly in March this year, and was subsequently accepted by the Colonial Office when the All-Panty Delegation negotiated for the new constitution. Since then, the Government has gone into this residential qualification of ten years. The All-Party Delegation has had further discussions and it felt that an amendment to eight years would be easier for administrative purposes in view of the fact that identity cards were issued late in 1948. It is for that reason that the All-Party Delegation felt that an amendment to eight years would make it easier for the administration to register all those persons who are qualified under this proposed legislation.'

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar in those days - he is at present the Prime Minister - supported the reduction from 10 years to 8 years, but based on different grounds and reasons from those of the Chief Minister. He said, in column 656:

`Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Chairman, as I have said in the Assembly during the Second Reading of this Bill, if the amendment from ten to eight years does not result in our citizenship laws being further away from the citizenship laws of the Federation, then we are in favour of the amendment. As far as I can see, the amendment to eight years will make our citizenship laws more akin to those of the Federation and I support the amendment.'

May I repeat again, Sir:

`As far as I can see, the amendment to eight years will make our citizenship laws more akin to those of the Federation, and I support the amendment.'

There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister made this decision in Select Committee in 1957 on the spur of the moment. As a matter of fact, he had given careful thought to the problem of citizenship when merger was to take place. About two weeks earlier, during the debate on the Second Reading of the Citizenship Bill, the Prime Minister, who was then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, said - may I refer you, Sir, to Hansard, column 2575, dated 11th September, 1957, about the fifth line from the top:

`If we are honest about merger and the building of one nation, when we draw up our citizenship laws, we must see where it is going to dovetail into the Federation citizenship laws because the moment the principle of merger is accepted we have to discuss the conditions for it.'

The Prime Minister in 1957 thought that the original proposal of qualification for Singapore citizenship of 10 years was slightly higher than that for Federal citizenship and therefore supported the move to reduce the qualification, to bring it into line with the Federal citizenship laws. Sir, the Prime Minister had in mind not only the comparative provisions of the Federation citizenship laws but he had in mind also the citizenship laws of the Commonwealth countries, because all the citizens of Commonwealth countries are called Commonwealth citizens. It seems to me that it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, as the leader of the Commonwealth, to see that no member of the British Commonwealth deviates substantially from the norm of Commonwealth citizenship laws. It appears that the Federation citizenship laws and the Singapore citizenship laws are all based substantially on the norm adopted by all Commonwealth countries and applicable to all Commonwealth citizens, with some slight variations to suit local conditions.

Sir, may I now refer you to the Report of the All-Party Singapore Constitutional Conference, 1957, paragraph 49? This report was the result of negotiations between the All-Party Mission and the U.K. Government. Paragraph 49 reads as follows:

`It had already been agreed at the previous Conference that a separate Singapore citizenship within the Commonwealth should be created. We recognised that it would consequently be necessary to introduce legislation in Singapore establishing the conditions and qualifications for Singapore citizenship. We agreed that the Singapore Bill should be prepared in consultation with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in view of the proposal in paragraph 51 that the British Nationality Act should be amended so that Singapore citizenship would be recognised in United Kingdom law as conferring the status of Commonwealth citizen.'.

Sir, it is, therefore, my contention that Singapore citizens have acquired their citizenship rights on qualifications based on the norm adopted in other Commonwealth countries and in general conformity, as the Prime Minister in 1957 agreed, with the Federation citizenship laws. At least that was what the Prime Minister told us in 1957. Those who have satisfied the minimum qualification of 8 years in 1958 when they obtained their citizenship papers, will now satisfy a minimum residential period of 12 years in 1962. Moreover, the vast majority of those who have acquired citizenship by registration have been staying here for decades, making this island city their home and the object of their loyalty. I therefore cannot agree with the Prime Minister on the first alternative in the question to be put in the ballot paper. The main reason against the White Paper is that I cannot agree with his citizenship proposals.

Let us now come, Sir, to the distortions of the Prime Minister in his opening speech on the stand of the Opposition towards merger. When the merger issue was debated in the House, the views towards merger were split into two. The P.A.P., supported by S.P.A. and U.M.N.O., supported the White Paper proposals; the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. supported the principle of automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens and proportionate representation in the Central Parliament. Under the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 all citizens of the respective States which they term State nationals, excluding Malacca and Penang, automatically became Federal Citizens by virtue of section 125 (a) of the Agreement. Section 125 (a) of the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 reads as follows :-

"Citizens by operation of law ---

On and after the prescribed date, the following persons shall be citizens of the Federation of Malaya by operation of law;

(a) any subject of His Highness, the Ruler of any States;",

which is the best analogy to our present Singapore citizenship. Now, Sir, Johore citizens then became Federal citizens automatically, Selangor citizens became Federal citizens also automatically, Perlis citizens also became Federal citizens automatically, Pahang citizens also automatically, Perak, Trengganu, Negri Sembilan and so on. Sir, why should Singapore citizens be treated differently? The Prime Minister's case for the White Paper is based on the premise that most of the citizens of Singapore by registration could not have obtained their citizenship under more stringent laws applicable in the Federation. However, his stand in 1957, as I have stated just now, was different and his views in the Select Committee on the Singapore Citizenship Bill gave one the impression that the proposed qualification in the draft Bill is higher than the Federation's qualification and therefore should be reduced.

Now, Sir, I will come to the second alternative in the Prime Minister's motion. The second alternative in the ballot paper posed by the Prime Minister is vague and therefore capable of distortion. What is meant by "a complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis with the other eleven States in accordance with the Constitution documents of the Federation of Malaya"? Does the Prime Minister take it to mean that all Singapore citizens by registration, on Merger Day, would be deprived of their Singapore citizenship, and have got to re-apply separately and individually for Federal citizenship? If that is the case, Sir, the chances are that many of them could not get it, not because they are not qualified - the Prime Minister did not think so in 1957, but by administrative obstacles and delays which may be posed by the Central Government which would have the control of the administration of citizenship. I would also wish to ask the Government whether the second alternative has been the basis of negotiations between the Singapore and the Federation Governments, and if that is so, whether it has been set up in concrete proposals as the White Paper.

The motion of the Prime Minister puts forward two alternatives, the first one is the White Paper proposal. The White Paper proposal is not genuine merger - and here, Sir, I can do nothing better than to quote the P.A.P.'s ally on the White Paper, the S.P.A. The S.P.A., in a sense, are more honest, and in their speeches and their party publications they have repeatedly said that the White Paper proposal is not merger but a form of closer association with the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer to page 61 [col. 93] of yesterday's Official Report. The Member for Cairnhill - about seven lines from the bottom said:

`Now proposal No. 1 of Command Paper No. 33 is, in fact, not merger. It is a form of closer association. It is a form which the P.A.P., as a Government, has secured from the Federation Government.'

And may I refer again to the July 1962 addition of the S.P.A. organ, page 4, which reads:

'CLOSER ASSOCIATION NOT MERGER

The agreement between the Federation Government and the Singapore Government is not merger. It is a form of closer association along the lines of a Confederation. We support it as a first step towards the eventual merger and the sooner we all become Malayan conscious and behave as Malayans the sooner will merger take place.'

And the article continues on:

`The simple unadulterated truth is that because the agreement reached is not merger but a form of Confederation, the citizens of Singapore shall remain as citizens of Singapore and the citizens of the Federation shall remain citizens of the Federation.'

In other words, Sir, what the S.P.A. is trying to drive at is that only in a genuine merger will Singapore citizens and Federal citizens be converted into one common citizenship. Therefore, based on the S.P.A.'s arguments, from the S.P.A., a Party which supports the White Paper of the P.A.P. Government, the second alternative in the motion of the Prime Minister cannot be merger because then all Singapore citizens and all Federal citizens shall come together under one common citizenship. Then, Sir, what could this second alternative in the proposed ballot paper mean but the deprivation of Singapore citizens by registration from the present citizenship they now have, and becoming stateless persons, which means half of the present 624,000 Singapore citizens would become stateless persons. Sir, of course, the P.A.P. can argue that this is S.P.A. distortion either by the Member for Cairnhill in his speech or by the S.P.A. organ of what is meant by merger and of what is the constitutional relationship between Singapore and the Federation as envisaged in the White Paper proposals. Therefore, Sir, I shall quote from the P.A.P. organ itself, the Petir. In the issue dated 31st May, 1962, page 5, the Petir said

`The present merger proposals are but steps towards full integration and under conditions satisfactory to all concerned. Nobody believes that these merger proposals are final and absolute.'

Sir, what does this clause mean? It means and admits that the White Paper is only a step towards full integration. Does it not also mean, Sir, that full integration is therefore the ideal objective of the people of Malaya which includes Singapore, but that at present it is not possible to achieve it? In other words, it is not possible to have a common citizenship until conditions are ripe. In the same page the Petir said:

`This demand for complete integration would be unacceptable to the Federation leaders at the present time.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is meant by this article is that the ideal is complete integration which at present the Federation leaders are not prepared to give. Therefore, Mr Speaker, the second alternative in the Prime Minister's motion can only mean something else but not the complete integration which we understand, on the complete integration which the P.A.P. organ understands - the P.A.P. organ, the Petir, as different from the P.A.P. Government.

The first alternative, which is the White Paper, is unacceptable to the people. The second alternative has never been put forward even in broad generalities as the White Paper proposals. It is vague, and therefore can lead itself to all sorts of distortions, manipulations and interpretations and is therefore equally unacceptable. Proposal one is unacceptable and proposal two is even more unacceptable.

The people of Singapore are not prepared to give a blank cheque to the second proposal posed by the Prime Minister.

Sir, on the first proposal, the Government is singing high praises for the White Paper. The Prime Minister said that under complete integration - and this was repeated just now by the Minister for Finance - many of the Assemblymen in this Chamber would not be eligible to stand for election as there would be no multi-lingualism. Mr Speaker, Sir, are they then appealing to these Assemblymen to support the White Paper? I am sure, Sir, if such personal sacrifices are necessary, they will be prepared to rise to the occasion in the interest of the people. The so-called autonomy in education, and labour is more imaginary than real. It is my view that in matters under the control of the Central Government - either absolute control, or under concurrent powers - such as the control of defence and internal security, of law and the machinery of government, of financial and industrial policies, and so on, a Central Government can bring the Singapore State Government down to its knees if the Singapore State Government refuses to accept the "advice" and "direction" of a Central Government on matters over which the State Government is supposed to have exclusive jurisdiction, for instance, education and labour. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is my analysis of the so-called autonomy in education and labour.

The right to collect only 75 per cent of the revenue to administer the respective subjects like education and labour is similar or akin to a P.A.P. branch collecting 75 per cent of its membership dues itself in order to defray branch expenses on behalf of the Central Executive of the P.A.P.; because Mr Speaker, Sir, financial, economic, fiscal and taxation policies would be decided under the White Paper proposals by the Central Government. The Singapore State Government would not be able, for instance, to exercise a flexible fiscal and economic policy to cope with its special economic and social responsibilities. For instance, we would have the responsibilities of administering health and social security, but without the corresponding power and the means to discharge our obligations to the people of Singapore.

As for special privileges to Malays, Sir, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech yesterday, we are not against them, so long as they are within reasonable limits and are for the benefit of the under-privileged Malay masses. What we oppose is to keep a small privileged group of Malays and ignore the interests of the poor Malay masses.

Sir, let me now come to the third alternative put forward by the S.P.A. which is acceptable to the Government. This third proposal, Sir, is equally unacceptable to the people of Singapore. It is vague and the same argument against the second alternative applies equally well to the third proposal. It could be interpreted in the same way, as I see it, as the so-called Penang and Malacca type of merger, and the people would be asked as in the second proposal to give a blank cheque for it.

It is my opinion, therefore, that the second and third proposals could be interpreted to mean something worse than the White Paper proposals. The Minister for Finance stated at the conclusion of his speech that the White Paper proposals on merger are far superior to the two other proposals. He has admitted it. Therefore, Sir, the Government's tactic of putting alternatives more unacceptable than the White Paper still stands and has not changed.

Sir, the purpose of this motion is to seek justification in the eyes of the world that the referendum which is soon to come is a democratic and an honest referendum and that the White Paper proposals have been approved by a majority of the voters by including all blank votes as pro-White Paper votes. The alternatives posed in the Newfoundland and Uganda referenda were genuine alternatives. Let me illustrate, Sir; if the people of Singapore are asked whether they prefer potatoes or bread, they are not genuine alternatives, because the people of Singapore are divided into those who eat bread and those who eat rice. Similarly, Sir, if the people of Ireland are asked whether they prefer rice or bread, they are not genuine alternatives, because the alternatives there would be potatoes and bread.

Sir, if the Government were sincere in thrashing out the genuine alternatives in the merger issue, they should have long ago convened an All-Party Conference, as it was done during the 1957 constitutional talks; the result then was unanimity and everybody was satisfied. Sir, it is still not too late for the Government to do so.

The motion of the Prime Minister only serves as an attempt to win the argument on merger over the Opposition Parties who are against the White Paper proposals and that, Sir, will fail. Nothing arising from this debate could alter the Government's basic tactical position, which is to put proposals or alternatives more unacceptable than the White Paper proposals. And you have no better proof than from the horse's mouth of the Minister for Finance. Any genuine alternative could not be accepted by the Government. Therefore, Sir, by putting in more alternatives, more proposals or amendments which are acceptable to the Government, they would only be serving to confuse the issue at stake. The issue is that the people should be asked to accept or reject the White Paper. If that is the question to be posed, there would be no doubt about the outcome. But as things are, the Government would push through this sham referendum and steam-roller its White Paper proposals through.

What should the people do in the circumstances? If the voter does not go and vote, he loses his vote in future elections. If he tears his vote or defaces it, he will go to gaol. If he writes his name and address, he is afraid of being intimidated. Sir, if he throws in a blank vote it would be considered a pro-Government vote. But faced with these possible courses of action, our stand is that the people should throw in blank votes, which is the least of the evils. If the blank votes are more than the votes for the White Paper, then the Government would keep quiet. But if the votes for the White Paper exceed the blank votes, not for any reason but merely because the voter is faced with impossible alternatives, and in desperation throws his vote for the White Paper proposals, then we may be giving Government the opportunity to announce separately the number of votes supporting the White Paper and thereby mount a propaganda campaign to convince the world that the majority of Singapore citizens have supported the White Paper and have done so without counting the blank votes.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Anson stated in this House yesterday that the Federation Constitution makes provision for state nationals to become Federal citizens from the moment it took effect. Why then, he asked, could not state nationals in Singapore automatically have Federal citizenship under Article 22 of the Federation Constitution, which is the article providing that whenever any new territory is admitted into the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, the Federation Parliament may by law determine what persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates for such persons to be citizens. He further argued that it was not the spirit of the Federation Constitution to bar state nationals, whether of the Federation or the State to be admitted, and to put technicalities in their way would be a fraud, in view of the fact that since 1957 there has been accorded a new status of Singapore citizenship.

Sir, he knew that in this House on the 22nd of November, 1961, Hansard, Volume 15, columns 474, 475 and 476, I had taken the trouble to explain the distinction in the Federation citizenship laws between those who were born in any of the territories of the Federation before Merdeka Day and who were not qualified to be Federation citizens by operation of law under the Constitution, and the state nationals and others who were qualified to be citizens by operation of law. Sir, I referred on that occasion to the provisions of section 124 of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, and section 125 of the Federation of Malaya Agreement (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952, and pointed out that a person born in Penang or Malacca, which was referred to in the Agreement as British Settlements, became Federation citizens by operation of law on the operative date of the Federation of Malaya Agreement. 1948 - that is the 1st of February, 1948.

Sir, I also pointed out that a person born in any part of the Federation outside Penang and Malacca did not become a citizen by operation of law unless (1) he is a subject of the Ruler. Subjects of the Ruler are defined as aborigines, Malays and persons naturalised as subjects of the Ruler; and (2) if he is a British subject or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and one of his parents was born in any of the territories of the Federation.

I also mentioned that the Federation of Malaya Agreement (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952, deleted two earlier provisions in the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, providing that (1) persons born before, on or after 1st of February, 1948 (i.e. the appointed date of the Federation of Malaya Agreement) in the Federation who habitually spoke the Malay language and conformed to Malay customs and (2) other persons born before, on or after the 1st February, 1948, in any of the territories of the Federation, both of whose parents were born in any of the territories of the Federation and were before or at the time of their birth or thereafter became permanently resident in any territory of the Federation, were also citizens by operation of law.

Sir, by the deletion of these two earlier provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, a person who was born in any of the territories of the Federation outside Penang and Malacca could only become a citizen by operation of law if he was a subject of the ruler, or if he was a British subject, or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and one of his parents was born in any of the territories of the Federation. To that extent the more lax provisions obtaining from the operative date of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, for the grant of citizenship by operation of law were tightened up by the provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement (Amendment) Ordinance. 1952. Sir, before Article 16 of the Constitution came into force on Merdeka Day, the 31st of August, 1957, those who were born in any of the other territories outside Penang and Malacca and who were not qualified for citizenship by operation of law were required to make an application for Federation citizenship and had to satisfy the requirements laid down in the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948. These requirements were those of residence and an adequate - not an elementary - knowledge of the Malay language. On or after Merdeka Day, under Article 16 of the Constitution, any person who is born in the Federation before Merdeka Day and who is not qualified to be a citizen by operation of law must make an application to the Federation Government to be registered as a citizen and is entitled to a grant of citizenship if he satisfies the Federation Government, (a) that he has resided in the Federation during the seven years immediately preceding the date of the application for a period amounting in the aggregate to not less than five years; (b) that he intends to reside permanently in the Federation; (c) that he is of good character; (d) that he has an elementary knowledge of the Malay language. Where citizenship is granted by way of registration to those born in the Federation before Merdeka Day under Article 16, even if all the requirements for citizenship by registration are satisfied, citizenship can still be refused and there is no appeal from such refusal to the courts.

The obvious inference to be drawn from a study of this legislation is that there must be a large number of Indians and Chinese who are born in the States of the Federation outside Penang and Malacca before Merdeka Day who are still not qualified under Federation citizenship laws for an automatic grant of Federation citizenship. The important consideration is that unlike those born in Singapore, these persons who were born in the associated States of what became, on the 31st of August, 1957, the independent sovereign State of the Federation of Malaya would be in a stronger position to claim automatic citizenship rights than those born in Singapore by virtue of this association.

Sir, a claim for automatic citizenship rights for the local born in Singapore would, in effect, be a claim that they should be granted more favourable terms than the terms accorded to those who were born in the associated States of the Federation outside Penang or Malacca before Merdeka Day and who are not eligible for an automatic grant of citizenship. In this connection, Sir, I would like to repeat what I said in this House on the 22nd of September, 1961, during the debate on the White Paper proposals, Hansard, Volume 15, 22nd of November, columns 479 and 480. I quote:

`Even if we were able to persuade the Federation Parliament to grant more favourable terms to our local-born by asking that they should be accorded the same citizenship terms as those accorded to persons born in Penang and Malacca under the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, as amended by the (Amendment) Ordinance of 1952, could this not be construed to be selling out the political rights of the larger number of Singapore citizens who have acquired Singapore Citizenship by residence? And, Sir, if the Federation Parliament has not granted automatic Federation Citizenship to persons born in the associated States of the Federation, outside Penang and Malacca, would it be reasonable to expect the Federation Parliament to grant automatic citizenship rights to persons who have only acquired citizenship rights in Singapore by residence?'

Sir, I am glad the Member for Anson has at last acknowledged that there can be no question of Singapore citizens automatically becoming citizens of the Federation, because there are no provisions for such automatic transformation of citizenship in the Federation Constitution. He agrees that the question of automatic conversion of citizenship on merger is a matter for negotiation with the Federation Government. He has made certain proposals to the Tunku on automatic conversion of citizenship on merger, but in spite of a challenge in this House, he has not dared to publish the Tunku's reply. Sir, it is a self-evident proposition that politics is the art of the possible, and it is also a self-evident proposition that it takes two to make a bargain. If it can be shown from a careful study of the Federation Constitution that it would not be practical politics to expect the Federation Government to grant more favourable terms to all Singapore citizens than it is prepared to grant to its own local-born, then any contention that an uncompromising demand for automatic conversion should be pressed as a condition for merger can be dismissed as a dishonest claim advanced for the purpose of frustrating merger.

Sir, the position in Singapore is very unlike that in the Borneo territories where the local-born out-number the residents and where the greater proportion of the local-born are indigenous. An automatic grant of Federation citizenship in the situation obtaining in the Borneo territories does less violence to the application of Federation citizenship laws. But the irony of it is that the people of Borneo themselves should want merger with a greater degree of local autonomy than that accorded to the constituent eleven States of the Federation.

The Member for Anson also referred to the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1962 which materially altered the citizenship provisions of the Federation Constitution. He inquired if Singapore should be asked to opt entry into the Federation on a basis much worse than that of any of the other eleven States which entered in 1957, because of these additional provisions of the 1962 Constitution (Amendment) Act. Sir, of course, this is a rhetorical question and would be the sort of question which one who did not want merger would ask. Article 14 of the Federation Constitution provided that every person born within the Federation on or after Merdeka Day would be a citizen by operation of law. The effect of the amendment is to modify the principle of the jus soli, the refusal of an automatic grant of Federation citizenship by operation of the law to persons born in the Federation on or after Merdeka Day, neither of whose parents are citizens of the Federation and neither of whom is a permanent resident therein. Persons born in the Federation before this amendment to Article 14 came into force and persons who would as a result of this amendment not be a citizen of any country are expressly excepted. There were formerly two exceptions to the principle of the jus soli which granted citizenship by operation of law on or after Merdeka Day. These were in respect of the child of an envoy of a sovereign power to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the child of an enemy alien born in any place under enemy occupation. This constitutional amendment added a third exception, namely, a child born after the coming into operation of New Clause 2 of Article 14, neither of whose parents was a citizen of the Federation and neither of whom was a permanent resident therein. The Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1962 also repealed Article 17 of the Constitution which authorises registration as a citizen on the grounds of long residence starting before the 31st August, 1957. This amendment was made to conform to the usual practice that citizenship should be obtained by naturalisation and not by registration, by all those who claim to acquire citizenship on the ground that they have made their permanent homes in the Federation.

The Federation is an independent sovereign State, and is free to make such laws as it deems fit in respect of its own citizens. If it is contended by the Member for Anson that this whittling down of the jus soli in respect of those born in the Federation on or after Merdeka Day would also be applicable to Singapore citizens, if there is merger with automatic conversion of citizenship, does he not advance this argument for the purpose of opposing merger? Of course, his purpose in referring to this amendment to Article 14 of the Federation Constitution is to pretend that any form of merger for Singapore after this amendment will be on less favourable terms than the terms of merger accorded to the eleven States of the Federation in 1957. But this is not a rational argument as this modification of the jus soli is now in force in all the States of the Federation. Even if Singapore is to be merged with automatic conversion of citizenship, it could have no legal entitlement to more favourable consideration in respect of the jus soli. It is quite clear from what the Member for Anson has said in respect of the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1962 that he opposes merger and that his contention that the White Paper proposals should be improved and a common citizenship granted so that the majority of the people would make common cause in an effort to achieve integration with the Federation on a basis of common citizenship, is just a smoke-screen to hide the hypocrisy of the stand. Like the Barisan Sosialis he opposes any form of merger, but he has not got the courage to say so openly.

Sir, we have quoted many examples to show that there are good precedents for placing a choice of questions to the electorate on the question of merger which would take account of what the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim have said should be the basis on which there should be a merger. I do not propose to repeat what has been said in this debate. There is no good reason why the White Paper proposals should be the only proposals to be placed to the electorate in the coming referendum. I ask the House to reject the amendment to the Prime Minister's motion moved by the Member for Queenstown.

7.43 p.m.

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

Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government's constitutional arrangement is unreasonable. This has been known by the people of Singapore and flow the true facts have become clarified, that is, the P.A.P.'s merger plan is a sell-out. Today the attitude of the people towards the P.A.P. is not only centred on the question of merger. On the other hand, whether the P.A.P. Government has got the right to govern, it has expressed its doubts, because its so-called phoney merger plan cannot be covered by its excuses. They shout the slogan of independence through merger and the coming of prosperity, but all these schemes have been exposed by the people and the interests of the people of Singapore will be subordinated to those of the Federation Government, and the people of Singapore do not have their basic citizenship rights, equal citizenship rights. It is another kind of colonial domination - this kind of merger whereby hundreds of millions of dollars from taxation and revenue will be handed over to the Federal Government. Once again this has exposed the P.A.P. scheme and it has created doubts in the people's minds. Their merger scheme is only for a few leaders in the P.A.P. They have got the S.P.A. to support them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the national referendum should be used to ascertain the views of the people on the questions on the merger proposals passed by this House. The people should have the right to accept or reject any proposal which is passed by this House. That is the true meaning of a national referendum. That is why the Government should pose only its White Paper proposals to the people and not two questions. These White Paper proposals were negotiated by the Singapore Government and the Federation, and they were passed by this House with the support of the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. last year. Since the P.A.P. has the support of the Right-wing Party of the Assembly for its Command Paper No. 33, this has made the people of this State more confused. Therefore, the P.A.P. leadership, in order to save the political situation, let the people decide on the referendum issue. Now we can see that the Prime Minister has brought up two questions to let the people choose. He has brought up this proposal as posed in Paper Command No. 33. He does not let the people say yes or no to this White Paper Command No. 33. His intention is to confuse the people. We have already made all-out efforts in this House to caution the Government not to suppress the people into acceptance; otherwise they will have to face the consequences of their act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Chor Yeok Eng): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since this motion was brought up we have debated it for two days. We have been very disappointed. The Marxist and Leninist followers have defended their arguments by means of logic. Let me now, as an outsider, use common sense to talk about the purpose of their amendment. Everything is divided into two aspects. One is constructive; the other is destructive. From the basis of the question, we can reach the aim we want to achieve. Let me talk about the factors involved in the constructive aspect. First of all, we must understand where the basic question lies. Secondly, what should be our objective and the shape of our objectives. Who is more adamant in pushing through the proposals? On the contrary, if their arguments are based on the destructive aspect, then it would be dishonest. You want to find the true cause of the matter and not to find fault. We should not destroy in order to achieve our purpose. In the two days' debate we have seen more clearly the purpose of the Member for Queenstown's amendment. There is no honesty in the amendment. To put it simply, the main purpose is not as appears in the amendment.

Now let me explain the balance of interests in the matter. We know that if a person wants to corrupt or destroy a matter, it is easy for him. Conversely, if you want to do it from a constructive point of view and you want to prevent a thing from being destroyed and not to be changed in its appearance, it is not an easy thing. For example, if we have a white cloth and we want to dirty it purposely, we can do it within a second. If we want to destroy a very grand building, that process will not require more than two seconds. If we want to restore it back to its original appearance, it is a difficult and long process and a lot of methods have to be adopted in order to do it.

Let me talk further. Today the merger between Singapore and Malaya - it is just like a foetus not yet born. Those people with malicious intentions will wish that the foetus is a female. This is not correct and it is malicious. In our understanding, if the foetus is born, whether it is complete or not, wholesome or not, it will depend on whether the parents are healthy. This is a point of view. From here, we can understand that in this amendment it has been stated very clearly that its purpose is to achieve the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya through merger. The first thing is through the White Paper method, that is, preserving the labour and education autonomy. The other method is unconditional merger and Singapore becoming a component part of the Federation as any one of the other 11 States of the Federation. That is the ---

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order.

Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present. Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

8.05 p.m.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now I was talking about the proposal (b). I was talking about the second point, i.e., about the forms to be chosen to achieve merger between Singapore and the Federation. Earlier I also said that what we want now is to find out in which form our purpose should be achieved. But it is a matter for regret that the Barisan Sosialis have been beating about the bush and saying that this motion could not achieve their wishes. In the course of the debate in the past two days, we have been hearing only such phrases as "sell-out", "undemocratic". But the truth will come out in due course. The Barisan Sosialis have not substantiated their arguments. They have not advanced any concrete evidence to support their arguments.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to criticise a Bill, that is something you can do in different ways. Let me give an example. For instance, a girl; a person criticises a girl; from a constructive point of view, he can say the girl is beautiful and can even describe her as a fairy or goddess. But if a person is malicious, he can very well describe that girl as a devil, or some kind of goblin, or a witch. Now, to take the first person; his criticism is more or less with good intentions. But the latter one is not so. That is why in respect of our proposals, the first question posed is to ascertain the views of the people and to get their constructive views. But as for the second person mentioned, his intention is to try to destroy, to create misunderstanding, hatred and a bad impression in the minds of the people, and to try to confuse and mislead them, so as to achieve their own ends. Libel and slander can, perhaps, prevail for a short period, but truth will ultimately triumph. We can also say that truth will never be killed or destroyed. We can positively say that in 1959, we had a mandate from the people. That is why today we have a duty to fulfil this mandate from the people. What we are concerned with is the livelihood and welfare of the people. We do not mind the slanderous statements made of the Party and of its members. That is how responsible citizens should behave. Here, let me quote a Chinese poem to explain our intention. It is written by Wen Tien Hsiang, a Chinese poet. It says:

`In one's life, death is always waiting.

We should bare our hearts to show our intentions clean.' That should be our intention and our attitude.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the inception of our Party, we have repeatedly stressed that our Party is a non-Communist Party. In the present situation, our political opponents have been saying that we are anti-Communist. If we have been anti-Communist, then it must be so because we want to defend ourselves. Everybody has the right to defend himself especially when it concerns the interests of the country.

Lastly, let me caution those who play with fire. There is a saying that these who play with fire will be burnt by fire. I would especially like to remind the Member for Anson of this. I recall that he asked a question in this House about the refugees fleeing into Hongkong from m China. He appeared to be very concerned about them. I would say that we are not the comrades of these refugees. We are not concerned with events that take place in China because these are all internal matters of Communist China and have nothing to do with us. Our duty is to protect and to take care of our people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is another point which we cannot understand. The Member for Anson, in the one hand, has strongly attacked the Communists in this House and, on the other hand, he has been supporting the people who are pro-Peking. That is something which is very difficult to understand. What we are concerned with today is the security of our State. We should not let the same tragedy which happened in Communist China to happen here.

Before concluding, let me quote a moral from Aesop's Fables to remind the Member for Anson, "Do not carry a frozen snake in your bosom." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regards the survival of the Member for Anson, we do not care. What we care for is the interest and the livelihood of the people of Singapore. That is very important.

8.16 p.m.

Mr Wong Soon Fong (Toa Payoh): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the motion tabled by the Prime Minister, we can prove the dishonesty of the P.A.P. Government. This also negates the propaganda about the merger plan in the past year. All this completely exposes their dishonesty. We have also proved that the P.A.P. do not dare to put their merger proposals to the people.

The P.A.P. merger proposals alone will not be submitted to the people for their decision. Instead the Government will pose two questions for the people to choose. Apart from the original White Paper merger proposals, the other question is the so-called unconditional merger. But may we ask what is meant by the phrase "unconditional merger"? Has any detailed plan on this unconditional merger been submitted to this House for a decision?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the statements and speeches of the Ministers and the Prime Minister, the so-called unconditional merger will be worse than the White Paper merger proposals proposed by the Government. We would not only not have autonomy in labour and education, but, according to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Law, half the non-local born citizens of Singapore would lose their citizenship rights under this so-called unconditional merger. This is a very shameful act on the part of the P.A.P. Ministers and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the other Government Ministers have found out that the people of this country will not accept their White Paper merger proposals. That is why they have to think of all sorts of ways and means to try and distort the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the merger issue. Our demand is for a real merger, an equal merger, under which the 624,000 citizens of Singapore will automatically become Federal citizens. And the Government Ministers say that this demand is not reasonable. They have even spoken on behalf of the Prime Minister of Singapore saying that he cannot accept the automatic conversion of the 624,000 citizens into Federal citizens. The Prime Minister has said that the worth of the citizenship rights of the non-local born citizens is only one dollar. The so-called Prime Minister, who represents the people of Singapore, is really insulting the people of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. leaders have not only distorted the stand of our Party, but they have also insulted the reputation of the 624,000 citizens of Singapore.

In spite of the fact that they were elected by the people to become the Prime Minister and Ministers, we can see very clearly from their past behaviour and performance that their continuation in office is illegal. All the actions and the measures taken by the Government in the past will not become valid. The P.A.P. were elected by the people, but today they have considered that the citizenship right of the people is worth one dollar and that the people are not qualified to become Federal citizens.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the constitutional arrangements before us today have been proposed by the PAP. Government. They are embodied in the White Paper merger proposals which were passed by this House sometime ago. Therefore, the people of Singapore should have the right to say "yes" or "no" to the constitutional arrangements proposed by the Government. The question to be posed to the people should be the White Paper merger proposals put forward by the P.A.P. We hope that the Prime Minister will not bring forward another proposal-the so-called unconditional merger. They should not pose another question so that when the people go to vote, they will not be able to say "yes" or "no" to the questions posed. Their blank votes will be construed as votes in favour of the Government's merger proposals. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the P.A.P. and their Ministers are not honest. They will be malicious if they try to pose these questions. These questions are posed for the sake of a few Ministers. We strongly oppose this sort of national referendum in which two questions are to be posed to the people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier on we have heard the Prime Minister say in his speech that he also accepted the amendment proposed by the Member for Cairnhill. This amendment is such that when the two questions are posed, there will be a third alternative question. That is, the people will be asked to choose another alternative question. That is "to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories". From the Prime Minister's acceptance of the Member for Cairnhill's amendment, we can once again expose their behaviour and their motives. We do not know at present what are the merger conditions for the three territories in Borneo. The Government is now ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend this sitting until half-past nine.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide between the alternatives of reunification on the basis of

(a) The constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961 giving Singapore autonomy in education and labour; or

(b) a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya."

Since which an amendment has been proposed,

In line 3, to leave out from "their" to the end and insert ---

"wishes on the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide whether they accept or reject the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961".

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

Mr Wong Soon Fong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I talked about the Prime Minister accepting the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill regarding the proposal for merger. The Government's action was completely dishonest and showed their true colours too. I want to point out to the Member for Cairnhill that he should not think that by bringing up this amendment he can confuse the people in regard to the proposals for merger. The merger stand of the Barisan Sosialis does not permit any distortion by other people. In the past, the P.A.P. Ministers and the Prime Minister, and the P.A.P. Political Bureau used all measures and made all efforts to distort our stand. The Prime Minister even went to the extent of saying that in his merger proposal, the meaning of "citizen" and "national" is the same and that a citizen enjoys the same rights as a national. This has already been clearly seen by the people, and now they are trying to distort our stand. Conversely, although the Ministers and the Prime Minister continue to distort our stand, they have made the people understand more about our stand. Their efforts to distort our stand have not had any good result.

Here I would like to reiterate the Barisan Sosialis stand. The people of the two territories should have equal rights, that is, when merger comes, and all the citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. Secondly, there should be proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. If these conditions are not acceptable to the Federation, we suggest a closer relationship between the two territories, that the people of Singapore should reach a basis of confederation. This is the stand we have been advocating to the people of Singapore. We do not allow anybody to distort this stand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Law, in his speech, quoted many laws passed by the colonial governments to show that if merger were to take place, the people of Singapore would not automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. If that is the logic of the P.A.P., then we say that the P.A.P. leaders have completely regarded the colonial laws as true, and in doing so they have acted contrary to the people's wishes.

The Minister for Finance also repeated in his speech that the merger plan was very good. At the same time, he also advocated the unequal citizenship rights in the merger proposal. In the past, we have pointed out that the P.A.P.'s merger proposal, if it were to be realised, would make the people of Singapore second-class citizens, i.e., in the arrangement of the P.A.P. type merger, the people of Singapore will have only the right to get the same passport as that of the citizens of the Federation and will also enable the Federation Government to conscript our youth. Can the citizens of our State move freely in the country? Can the people of Singapore under this type of arrangement have the right to apply for lands in Johore for cultivation? Can the unemployed in Singapore have equal opportunities of getting jobs as the citizens of the Federation? These are questions which cannot be replied to by them. The Finance Minister just now only repeated his past statements, but he has not told us whether after merger we will have common benefits and rights as the citizens of the Federation of Malaya. These are questions which they cannot answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we also heard the Government Parliamentary Secretaries saying that we have gone against the original merger stand of the P.A.P. We do not know what they were pointing at. For example, in the past we have pointed out the reason why the P.A.P. has gone down to such a low level now. The main reason is that the P.A.P. has only adopted a policy planned by a few leaders in the P.A.P. We know there is no democratic discussion in the P.A.P., and what a good merger plan is like. From the announcement of the Member for Bras Basah when she left the P.A.P. we can see this. She said, "I do not want to think of one thing any say another thing as I did and had to do when I was in the P.A.P." The P.A.P. Members say things without any conscience. The Member for Bras Basah pointed out very clearly in her announcement that there were only a few leaders in the P.A.P. who had any say in policy matters. Now, the P.A.P. has come down to this low level and yet these few leaders still have not repented and listened to the people. So we can say that the Prime Minister is a clever person. The Minister for Law is one who knows the law. They should not use the law itself to obliterate their future.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past the Prime Minister has reminded Members of this House that when playing games one should keep to the rules of the games. But today the P.A.P. Government has entirely acted against such rules. In other words, the motion before this House today is completely contrary to the spirit of democracy and the Constitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, on the 24th of September last year, at a Press conference held at Radio Singapore, promised that the people of Singapore could express their views on the P.A.P.'s White Paper on merger in a referendum. But today the Prime Minister has entirely forgotten about his promises made in the past. Instead, he asks the people of Singapore to choose from the three unacceptable proposals, one containing the P.A.P. type of White Paper on merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, in moving his motion yesterday, said this. Let me quote what the Prime Minister said yesterday - this is the Nanyang Siang Pau of the 10th of July:

`When faced with the White Paper proposals and a complete merger like Penang and Johore and another merger proposal not inferior to the merger conditions for Borneo territories as their choices, the people would definitely choose the White Paper on merger in an overwhelming majority.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the intrigue behind the Prime Minister's motion. That is the way he has set a trap in order to let the people fall into it. From this quotation of the Prime Minister, we can fish out the motives and the scheming of the Prime Minister in this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, the Prime Minister has mentioned the White Paper merger proposals. I do not intend to deal with the contents of the White Paper, but I would like to point out to you that Paper Command 33, the constitutional arrangements arrived at by the P.A.P. Government and the Federation Government, was introduced to this House on the 15th November and the House was asked to decide on this White Paper arrived at by the Governments of the two territories. Later, with the support of the S.P.A. fellow travellers, these White Paper proposals were approved by this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before the passage of this White Paper, the P.A.P. Government had exerted their utmost in giving wide publicity to their White Paper proposals. The Ministry of Culture was used as propaganda machinery for the P.A.P. to publicise the White Paper proposals in four languages. The Ministry of Culture printed thousands and thousands of pamphlets on the White Paper on merger for distribution to many people. The travelling vans of the Ministry of Culture went to various places to distribute these pamphlets. From this we can know very clearly that the people of Singapore are rather clear about the contents of this White Paper on merger. The Government have achieved the purpose they want in their propaganda activities. But today, we see that the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister have not the guts to carry out what they promised the people on 24th September last year, that is, to let the people decide whether they want to accept this White Paper on merger. The P.A.P. think that autonomy in labour and education, as embodied in the White Paper, would receive the support of the majority of the workers and the Chinese in Singapore.

The Government have also made use of the State Advocate-General to issue statements to say that the terms "citizen" and "national" are the same in meaning, but all these propaganda activities have failed the P.A.P. because the people of Singapore have come to know the actual contents of the White Paper on merger, and that is why everywhere the people are opposing the conditions as embodied in the White Paper. The P.A.P. leadership have also got wind of this information and they have come to realise that if they were to put this White Paper on merger to the people to decide, then it would be like an earthen cow dropped into the ocean never to come back again. It has become a foregone case for them. That is why in introducing the motion the Prime Minister has not posed only one question to the people. Instead he has proposed two questions: one is a complete and unconditional merger on an equal basis as Penang and Malacca, which he has turned into the present (b) proposal.

Now, our stand on merger was clearly enunciated during the time when we were debating the merger proposals in this House and on other occasions. I am not prepared to go into details and to repeat so many things already uttered by my colleagues, but I would like to point out clearly to the P.A.P. leadership our stand on merger. I would like now to quote from Hansard, Volume 15, No. 5 of 21st November last year, from a speech made by our Party Chairman to explain our stand. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown, in the middle of column 400 to column 401, clearly enunciated our merger stand. I do not want to read all the words there, but the Minister for Finance just now, when touching upon our Barisan stand on merger, has distorted it. He has also quoted out of context. He has explained things according to the P.A.P. dictionary and has entirely and completely distorted our stand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, columns 400 and 401 of this particular Hansard have clearly stated our stand, and I will not repeat what the Member for Queenstown has said there. I would like only to point out that the P.A.P. Government think that by distorting our stand they may defeat us. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not changed our stand on merger. We will struggle to the end to secure and preserve the basic and democratic rights which the people of Singapore now enjoy. Mr Speaker, Sir, when introducing his motion the Prime Minister said that he unconditionally accepted the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill - "to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories". Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask, what are the terms for the Borneo territories? We are still in the dark. You will remember that yesterday when the Prime Minister was making a speech the Member for Anson asked him whether he could disclose the terms of merger for the Borneo territories before the referendum was held, but he evaded that question. He did not give an answer to that. From this, we can see very clearly that the so-called terms of merger for the Borneo territories are worse terms which the people of Singapore cannot accept.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see why the Prime Minister in his speech showed so much confidence that the people would overwhelmingly support Command Paper 33 of 1961. Proposals (b) and (e) will be worse than proposal (a). The people do not know what are the contents of proposals (b) and (c), but they do know that the poison in proposals (b) and (c) is worse than that contained in proposal (a).

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill yesterday said that the White Paper proposals on merger were the best the P.A.P. Government could get, but strangely enough, he introduced an amendment as another proposal. Why should he introduce the third proposition when he knows full well that such a proposition will not be acceptable to the people of Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember that on Friday last the House received the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill. On Saturday, the Prime Minister and the Member for Cairnhill went together to Kuala Lumpur on a pilgrimage to pay their homage there, and as a result of this joint trip, the Prime Minister accepted the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill as the third alternative for the people to vote on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has said many times that the interests of the people and the State must come first before the interests of the political Parties. He has also prided himself on the fact that his Party is a responsible Party and that he is a responsible Member. He described the debate in this House as a battle between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. This specious argument of the Member for Cairnhill should be rebutted. He said yesterday that the P.A.P.'s merger proposals were the best that they could get and yet he introduced another proposal which is worse than the P.A.P.'s proposal, hoping that he could deceive and mislead the people of Singapore into voting for either alternative. Therefore, we can point out that the Member for Cairnhill is not concerned with the interest of the people of Singapore; he is responsible to the P.A.P. only and not to the people. He is interested in saving the P.A.P. Government from collapsing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill knows that the P.A.P.'s White Paper merger proposals will not be acceptable to the people of Singapore. He says that if these proposals were to be put to the people, they would reject them. He termed the Command Paper 33 as a form of closer relationship between the two territories and not as merger. The Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has issued several statements to the Press confirming that the present constitutional arrangement is not merger but a closer partnership. I believe he was very honest when he said that. However, the Back and Front Benches of the Government have said that the Barisan Sosialis are opposed to merger. But as a matter of fact, this is not merger. We have not seen the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the P.A.P. deny the statement by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and the leaders of S.P.A. Therefore, we can clearly see that the P.A.P. has acquiesced in the fact that the White Paper merger proposals are only a form of closer relationship and not merger. But the P.A.P.'s Ministers and Members always accuse us of having delayed merger or of opposing merger. Their pretext and excuses can be explained only by their own P.A.P. dictionary. The common run of the people cannot accept their explanation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister yesterday said that we, the Barisan Sosialis, have made a mistake about the so-called Penang and Malacca type of merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me quote the speech by the Prime Minister. He said that the Barisan Sosialis later expressed the hope that the citizens of Singapore could automatically become citizens of Malaya. On this point they had the support of the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim. The Prime Minister pointed out that if the constitutional documents could give support to their assertion that the citizens here can automatically become citizens of Malaya, then let it be decided by impartial Judges. If these constitutional documents do not include these terms as the basis of their arguments, then all these arguments will be rejected. What he meant was that if we the Barisan Sosialis demand automatic conversion of citizens, then we must find a constitutional precedent, otherwise our demand will have to be rejected. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister is an expert on law, but when we debated the National Referendum Bill and the question of merger in this House, their tactics were to cite precedents. When these precedents could not be found, they tried to distort the stand of the Opposition. If that was of no avail to them, then they would say the Opposition were Communists or Communist stooges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us presume that what the Prime Minister said is correct; then at least we are able to find one precedent to show the P.A.P. that there is such a precedent. You know that the administrative rights of the eleven States in the Federation of Malaya are vested in the Central Government, that is to say, they have no autonomy. You cannot find any autonomy in any of the eleven States in the Federation of Malaya. But if, according to the logic of the Prime Minister, we can find this precedent in the White Paper merger proposals, Singapore will become a State of the Federation of Malaya. But according to the details of the White Paper merger proposals Singapore will have autonomy in labour and education, but this is not to be found in other States in the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore we can see very clearly that if the Federation Government can create this constitutional precedent, why cannot our 624,000 citizens in Singapore become citizens of the Federation of Malaya? And, in fact, according to Articles 17 and 22 of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, the citizens of Singapore have all the necessary qualifications to become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we can clearly see his argument in defence of himself cannot hold water.

The Prime Minister yesterday mentioned the letter which our Secretary-General wrote to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Let me quote a small paragraph from this. The Prime Minister said, "Any political Party in the Assembly can directly contact the Government of the Federation of Malaya to negotiate for better terms on the question of merger. As a matter of fact, the Member for Cairnhill tried to do so, and he also knew the actual position. Similarly, the Member for Cairnhill also knew the views of the Prime Minister of the Federation on this matter. Even the Barisan Sosialis, which is controlled by the Communists through their open front organisations and their leader, Mr Lim Ching Siong, publicly in April wrote to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Tunku Abdul Rahman."

I do not intend to talk about the contents of the letter between Mr Lim Ching Siong and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. I believe my Party Chairman will disclose the contents of this letter at an appropriate time. But what I want to stress here is that the Prime Minister accused my Secretary-General as the leader of the open front organisations of the Communists. But the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, when questioned by the reporters, said that he could not describe the letter as one addressed to him by a Communist. He personally believed that this letter could not be one sent by a Communist. Mr Speaker, Sir, this statement of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya was published on the 29th of March in the English Press and the Chinese Press in big headlines. I wish to point out here that the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya openly admitted that the letter sent by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis was not from the Communists. In other words, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has admitted that my Secretary-General is not a Communist. But the P.A.P., the Ministers and the Prime Minister have every now and then accused us of being the stooges of the Communists, and that our Secretary-General is the leader of the open front organisations of the Communist Party. From the statements of the two Prime Ministers, we can see clearly that the Prime Minister of Singapore is very dishonest. He is now trying to use all sorts of ways and means to smear the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, hoping that there might be some people who could be misled by their smears and their intimidation. His speeches are intended to prevent the masses from supporting us. I wish to tell the Front-Benches and the Back-Benches of the P.A.P. that their smear campaign will not be able to prevent the broad masses of the people front rallying to our side.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education talked at great length. I am delighted to hear from him. At least the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech yesterday also admitted that our stand on the merger question is correct. If, my memory is not incorrect, the Parliamentary Secretary said that what he meant was that the 624,000 citizens of Singapore can become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. He went on to say they would not trouble the Barisan Sosialis to put forth their merger proposals. From the speeches made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education it proves that our stand on the merger question is based on the interests of the 624,000 Singapore citizens. At the same time, the Minister for Finance also confirmed this in the last radio forum. The Minister for Finance described our merger proposal as a kind of super merger. Therefore, we can clearly see that our stand on merger is consistent. We have never changed and it is correct. But our stand has been deliberately distorted by the P.A.P. It has been turned into a so-called unconditional merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore now pay a lot of attention to the outcome of the constitutional future of Singapore. In the coming referendum, they will decide, their political power in the future. Therefore, the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is the only way to express their views. I believe that since the P.A.P. have already made a lot of propaganda about the P.A.P. type of merger for about a year, they have not got the trust of the people. What the people want to decide now is the merger proposal contained in Cmd. Paper 33. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I began my speech, I said that in playing games, we must follow the rules. Now, the P.A.P. and their fellow travellers, i.e., the S.P.A., have played a game not based on the rules. But I will tell them not to forget that when they play this type of game without rules, they must remember that they have 624,000 citizens as an audience watching them. If they really do not regard the consequences as important, and continue with this type of a game and disregard the anger of these 624,000 people, then they had better consider the interests of these people.

10.36 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the oligarchy of the P.A.P. has made all sorts of tricks to popularise their merger plan. But this merger plan is not acceptable to the people. Therefore, they purposely distort the stand of the Barisan Sosialis and try to smear it. They have already clouded the issue by their proposals in order to confuse the people and reap some harvest out of the confusion. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the various steps in the P.A.P.'s plan on merger, we know they have distorted the honest opinions of the Opposition. They have brought out two proposals which are almost similar in nature to let the people choose. They have already told us that they want to bring up two questions, but we feel that both questions are the same and not beneficial to the people. Then, under such circumstances, how can the people choose? The intention of the P.A.P. has been contrary to what the Prime Minister has said previously at various Press conferences, that is, to let the people decide on the merger issue. What should be left to the people to decide? What does this mean? That is, the people should be allowed to say yes' or no'. Since the two questions in the motion are exactly the same, the P.A.P. leaders are afraid of putting the merger proposal as contained in Cmd. Paper 33 to be decided by the people. Real gold will stand the test of the touchstone. But the P.A.P. dare not put this to the people for approval or rejection. They have repeatedly distorted our Barisan Sosialis stand on merger and they have included clauses like that of blank votes to be deemed as in favour of the Government's view. From this, we can see that the Prime Minister's intention is to push through merger. This is a matter of "Heads I win: tails you lose." This is a trick.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to state here the basic stand of our Barisan Sosialis. These few days, the Member for Cairnhill and the P.A.P. Members have continued to distort our stand. I would like to clarify a certain point. The P.A.P's oligarchy has insisted on putting the Malacca and Penang type of merger out, and let labour and education policies be decided by the Central Government. They figure this is what the Barisan Sosialis want. This we have heard repeatedly. They have emphasised it many, many times, But they still bite on it. What is the intention? The intention is this. If they can hoodwink the people on this question, they can bring up two questions in the referendum, and they can achieve their purpose very easily in this way. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Penang and Malacca type of merger - whose proposal is it? In August 1961, the Barisan Sosialis already clearly announced publicly in the papers that we want to have a complete and true merger immediately on the basis of the Penang and Malacca type of merger and that the citizens of Singapore should be automatically converted into Federation citizens, and that there should be proportionate representation in the Central Parliament. Our stand has been very firm.

10.44 p.m.

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

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu) (In Mandarin): It is also very simple and clear. The White Paper on merger in this House was brought out in November 1961. We have allowed a few months before the tabling of the motion. Why do the P.A.P. want to distort our stand and say that we advocate the Penang and Malacca type of merger? Why do they not talk about proportional representation and automatic conversion of citizenship? We want Singapore citizens to be automatically converted into Federal citizens. But the P.A.P. say that in this way we will sell out the rights of over half of the 624,000 Singapore citizens. We only quoted the Penang and Malacca type as an example, but this has been misconstrued by others. The P.A.P. leaders are very good at distorting other people's stand and also quoting them out of context. They have manufactured the Penang and Malacca type of merger and have attributed it to the Barisan Sosialis. Fortunately the Workers' Party in the Opposition has seen this clearly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all these facts bear out our past argument that the P.A.P. have tried to confuse the people by bringing in two questions for merger. The two questions to be posed are similar in nature. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. oligarchy had observed the rules of democracy and were just, they would have proposed in the motion of the Prime Minister only one question, and that should be the question in the referendum for the people to decide. Unfortunately, our request was defeated by the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. out-voting us.

Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, the definition of "merger" ---

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr G. Kandasamy): Point of order. I think we are short of a quorum.

Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Deputy Speaker: We have a quorum flow. Mr Tan Cheng Tong, please continue.

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear!

10.50 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is the definition of the term "merger"? The meaning of merger is to unite two States together. Now, if merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya is to be a true merger, then it should be a reunification of the two territories, and the Governments of the two territories should resolve and the political Parties of the two territories should face the people and let them decide as to which political Party can meet the wishes of the people, so that a Central Government can be elected by the people of the two territories, and the two territories are thus united into one. That is what we understand by merger.

Yesterday the Member for Cairnhill expounded his theories in this House. But we the representatives of the people of Singapore understand his attitude very well. That is his usual practice. All his actions are taken with the motive of doing something at the expense of the people, and the people will pass correct judgment on him. Under British colonial directions, the merger plan regarding the two territories has become a controversial topic in the political arena.

There are two types of people. One insists on abiding by the will of the people. This is in accordance with the wishes of the people. In other words, this type of people would seek a type of merger that is supported by and wanted by the people. The other type of people is like the Member for Cairnhill and the P.A.P. Members. All their activities are based on personal interest. They are used to fooling the people and to intimidating and coercing them into accepting their schemes in order to realise their purposes and so to help the colonialist plot succeed. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is of this type. The speech he made in this House yesterday mainly revolves round the point that it is correct and proper for the Prime Minister to move a motion providing two propositions for the people to decide. From this we can see that they are harping on the same tune.

I would like to point out that when the White Paper on merger of the Government was introduced and debated in this House, it got the support of the Member for Cairnhill. As a result of that support, it was passed. We tried our best to boycott their scheme and to let the people see through their scheming and to understand our stand. Now, since the Member for Cairnhill has supported the White Paper on merger, why has he not persuaded the P.A.P. Government to pose only one question, i.e. on the White Paper on merger alone? Why should he allow the Government to pose two or more questions? Perhaps it is because he and the P.A.P. Members are people of the same nature. It is no wonder.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance once again stressed his argument that the citizens of Singapore would not become second-class citizens and that their type of merger has met with the wishes of the people. I think he was only trying to give some reason to justify the posing of two propositions as mentioned in the motion. I am sure all the people know that all this is humbug, because in the past they have been used to the terms "citizens" and "nationals" over Radio Singapore and at forums. Since according to them citizenship is similar to nationality, why should they not straightaway put their merger proposals to the people for a decision? Their type of merger does not meet with the wishes of the people. According to their merger proposals, a lot of people will lose their citizenship rights and one-quarter of our revenue will be given to the Central Government. That will amount to $90 million. Our internal affairs will have to be controlled by the Central Government. I think the sum required to be spent on the administration of internal affairs would amount to tens of millions of dollars. Why should we contribute more than what is actually required? From all this we can see that the arguments of the Minister for Finance are not sound. By that type of merger we will be giving away our rights and many other things. On the other hand, we do not get equal benefits. How could this type of merger be acceptable? Now I want to stress this because the Minister for Finance has said so many things. I urge the Prime Minister to withdraw his motion and put his White Paper merger proposals to the people as the sole question for them to decide so that we may know whether his White Paper merger proposals are good or bad.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 28; Absent, 8. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Chan Sun Wing. Mohammed Akib. Fung Yin Ching, Buang bin Miss. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Keng Swee. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandaswamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Absent Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Abdul Hamid bin Mohd. Ariff bin Haji Jumat. Suradi. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim M. Ismail Rahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Pang Boon. Madam. Rajah, A. P. Koh, C. H. Ramaswamy, S. Lin You Eng. Seow Peck Leng, Marhsall, David. Mrs. Rajaratnam, S. Tan Kia Gan. Sahorah binte Thio Chan Bee. Ahmat, Madam. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Now the debate is on the original motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, and the debate can range over items 3* and 4* on the Order Paper. I think the Member for Cairnhill has tabled an amendment to the original motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Now is the proper time for the Member for Cairnhill to move his amendment.

*See footnote at col. 185-6.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper,

"at end, to add `or

(c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for Borneo territories'.".

11.14 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will remember that when we were debating the National Referendum Bill in Committee we pointed out to the Government that it was essential that the questions to be posed in the merger referendum should be questions that have been fully debated in the Assembly and that they should embrace all possible and practicable forms of closer association with the Federation of Malaya. The Prime Minister in his motion has suggested two questions. One is that of Command Paper 33 and the other is complete and unconditional merger on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya. This the Prime Minister says, covers the stand of some of the Opposition Parties, particularly the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. Sir, the S.P.A. is indeed very anxious that the referendum on merger should contain all possible forms of closer association and I therefore during the Committee stage of the National Referendum Bill brought to the notice of the House that I intended to move an amendment posing a third question. I want it to be understood in this House lest the distortionists start distorting again that the proposal that I am moving now is not a S.P.A. question. It should not be taken to be a S.P.A. question put into a merger referendum. It should be taken as a contribution from the S.P.A. to assist the Assembly to pose all possible forms of closer association for the decision of the electorate. The S.P.A. - Alliance still stand by Command Paper 33.

Sir, let us now examine the three questions that are before the House. The first question is that of Command Paper 33. A full and lengthy debate took place on the agreement reached between the Singapore Government and the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Full details of that agreement have been published and are well known to the electorate. The P.A.P. brought confusion to the minds of the electorate by describing this form of agreement as merger. We have said that this is nothing but a form of closer association and if the word "merger" is to be used, perhaps we can describe the agreement reached between the two Governments as a form of half merger. It is a first step ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I trust the hon. Member is not reopening the debate on the Prime Minister's motion. He can just touch on it in passing. I hope he is not reopening the debate. He is moving an amendment. But I did make it very clear the debate should range over not only the Prime Minister's motion, but also the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown and also the amendment which is now being proposed by the Member for Cairnhill, and the other two notions.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, I do not propose to reopen the debate on command Paper 33. What I am trying to point out to the House are the various forms of closer association and want to take my argument step by step. Command Paper 33 is half merger. Call it a 50 per cent merger. Therefore, what is the next possible and practicable question? That is proposal (b), complete and unconditional merger on an equal basis with the 11 states at present in the Federation. That is something which the public know. That is something which we all know. We cannot as an alternative ask for a 75 per cent merger or 125 per cent merger, because it will be meaningless. The electorate will not know what a 75 per cent merger is, or what a 125 per cent merger is. They know what the White Paper is, and they know what complete and unconditional merger is. It is indeed unfortunate that in this tussle between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. a lot of extraneous matters were brought into the debate to confuse the minds of the electorate. The P.A.P. claims that proposition (b) does not mean automatic citizenship rights; the Barisan Sosialis claim that what they mean by complete and unconditional merger includes automatic citizenship right. All this argument is unnecessary. The citizenship rights are spelt out in the constitution and there is no need for the clever wigs of the P.A.P. to try to give their interpretation of what the constitution means. In the same way, the Barisan should not try to do the same thing. The Workers' Party representative, the Member for Anson, tries to explain his own interpretation, and his interpretation is such that not one citizen of Singapore can become a citizen of the Federation of Malaya, and things are getting more and more ridiculous. It gets more and more ridiculous through the unnecessary party warfare that has been waged over the question of merger for a long, long time, so much so that at times Members of the Assembly do get confused too. If it is the desire of some Opposition Parties - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the U.P.P. - to clamour for complete and unconditional merger, then it is up to them to hold referendum meetings to tell the electorate what they mean by what they want. If they can convince the electorate that complete and conditional merger, even with automatic citizenship rights, will mean that the citizens of Singapore, when they become citizens of the Federation, must accept all that is implied in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya where provision has been made for a number of things, it would, in my view, be difficult for the citizens of Singapore to accept that at the present juncture. They can have all the privileges that they want, but they must not overlook the fact that they too must accept all the limitations that are imposed under the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. So if they were to conduct referendum meetings and present their particular case in a straightforward manner without trying to mislead the public into believing that complete and unconditional merger is going just to mean automatic citizenship rights for the citizens of Singapore, then the public would have been misled into voting for something which is not true.

Sir, I have heard it talked about in coffee shops and elsewhere by the opponents of Cmd. Paper 33 that it was not right that the Singapore Government should accept a position of not having the same status as the Bornean territories. The opponents of Cmd. Paper 33, of course, tried their best to confuse the electorate. They said that Cmd. Paper 33 would place Singapore in an inferior position when compared with the position of any one of the Bornean territories, and because Malaysia is in the process of formation and because the Bornean territories are coming into this association with the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, therefore, I say it is but right that the electorate of Singapore should be given the opportunity to pass judgment on whether or not they prefer Singapore to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms offered to the Borneo territories. I do not know which political Party represented in this Assembly would be wanting to take up that line of closer relationship, but it is, of course, free to those that have preached this line of argument to hold referendum meetings and try to get the people to their line of thought and vote for proposal (c), brought in by me as an amendment to the motion. To me, Sir, these are the only possible and practicable forms of closer association.

The Barisan Sosialis have said that they have a further proposal to put forward, a fourth proposal, which should be put as one of the questions in the referendum merger. We have not heard what that proposal is, but we are prepared to listen to what they have to say. But if I, as an old Member of this Assembly, can give a little bit of advice to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, if they want their case to be properly, thoroughly and carefully considered, it would be in their interest to present their case in a straightforward, understandable manner without bringing in any extraneous matters like the P.A.P. is trying to cheat the electorate, the Barisan Sosialis is trying to look after the interests of the electorate, and that it is a Barisan Sosialis question. Questions to be posed in a merger referendum should have no party political content. It is vital that in the consideration of the questions to be posed in a referendum, the interests of the country should come first, and that the questions to be posed should be questions that are easily understood by the electorate and that the proposal should be one that has some known form. It would be wrong if the Barisan Sosialis were to put up a proposal that bears no relation to facts. It would be wrong if the Barisan Sosialis want to put a proposal in order to appeal to the emotions of the public instead of putting up a proposal that would best serve the interests of the public. And what is more important is that whatever proposal we put forward to the electorate for their decision, it must be one that can be acceptable to the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker: The Original Question was,

"That this House resolves that the people of Singapore be asked to express their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories and that a referendum be held for the people to decide between the alternatives of reunification on the basis of

(a) the constitutional arrangements set out in Paper Command 33 of 1961 giving Singapore autonomy in education and labour; or

(b) a complete and unconditional merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya.".

Since which an amendment has been proposed ---

"At end, to add ---

`or

(c) to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories.".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

11.33 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is good to see the Member for Cairnhill being so considerate and solicitous of the welfare of the people of Singapore. He says he would like to see all forms of merger offered in a referendum. But let us ask: what are the forms of merger that will be offered in the referendum? He is also very modest - he does not want to claim that it is a S.P.A. question. It is merely a contribution towards the giving of more forms of merger for the choice of the people of Singapore. Yet in his explanation, we have heard no explanation. What is this term "no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories"?

I remember, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill always talks of the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., and somehow or other he always appears to come out best. All those things that are false belong to the P.A.P. and to the ex-P.A.P. All the good things belong to the S.P.A. But see what a somersaulter the Member for Cairnhill is! We saw that somersault when he was talking about clauses 28 and 29 in the Referendum Bill. And now we again see another somersault. Why do I say this? If you remember, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill very categorically said, "If you want to offer questions to the people, then first of all you must have an unqualified and a qualified answer." If, for example, in the case of merger, the first question to be posed to the people should be "Do you want merger?", and if the answer came back with a "no", he said that it would be an unqualified "no". But if it should come back with a "yes", then it would be a qualified "yes". Therefore, his contention was that if you want to test the views of the people on this merger issue, you should first pose the simple question asking whether or not the people wanted merger. And if the answer came back with a "yes", then you can pose the various types and forms of merger to the people. All these records can be found in the proceedings in Select Committee on the Referendum Bill. And not only in Select Committee. His Secretary-General, Mr Lee Kim Chuan, also publicly stated the same stand in the University Forum a couple of weeks back; and again in the Anson mass rally, also a couple of weeks back. So we see now the somersault again of wanting three forms of merger without giving the people a chance to say "no", Of course, at one time he was very much against the dictatorship of the P.A.P., but it appears that the Member for Cairnhill is now hoping to get a Ministership of the depleted P.A.P. Government.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Yes, you had better watch out when he becomes the Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Speaker: Order. Did I hear the Leader of the House making a speech sitting down? I ask him not to make a speech if he wishes to interject.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We are always ready, Sir, for any Minister for Home Affairs. I know there are police around this House, Sir, and all those bodyguards too. But we are ready for anyone.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Including Woodbridge.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, in spite of the fact that the Cobbold Commission Report has not yet been published, it is quite obvious to us on this side of the House that the Member for Farrer Park, as well as the Member for Cairnhill, and as well as the P.A.P. Ministers, already known what the Cobbold Commission Report is all about. Otherwise it is very difficult for us to imagine how the Member for Cairnhill can ever propose such an alternative question. It is even more difficult for us to understand how it has been so easily accepted by the P.A.P. Government. Probably this is another new alternative which already) has the blessing of the Tunku. If you will remember, Sir, only a few days back it was publicly stated in the papers that the Member for Cairnhill, together with the Prime Minister, had conferred with the Prime Minister of the Federation.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Point of explanation, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It would seem that the hon. Member has lost the historical dates of all these happenings. I said that during the Committee stage I would move a motion in this form.

I went to Kuala Lumpur last Saturday on private business. And because I always stay with the Tunku, I saw the Prime Minister there. If he wants to think that there is collaboration, I hope to God that there will soon be a collaboration to knock out the Communists.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It was indeed a happy coincidence that the Member for Cairnhill should also happen to be in K.L. together with our Prime Minister. Of course, one plays golf; the other carries the sarong or hides behind the sarong: I do not know which. The Prime Minister always says, "Pay my compliments to the Member for Cairnhill."

But what, Sir, are the terms for the Borneo territories? As far as we know, there was this Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee that was supposed to have been a consultative body but which was very smoothly turned into much more than a Consultative Committee. In fact, the P.A.P. tried their level best to make it into an executive or a legislative body. They wanted to make it a body that was to lay down the blueprint for their pet design of Malaysia in order that everything might fit in with the plans of the British. Therefore, what are these terms that are offered for the Borneo territories? Are they the terms that the people of Borneo themselves want? That is what we like to know. Or are they merely terms which have been imposed on them?

We know, Sir, that in Singapore certain terms as embodied in the White Paper Cmd. 33 are terms which the P.A.P. Government would like to impose on the people. In the case of the Borneo territories, as far as we know, there is not even a single White Paper. Only recently, Sir, a couple of days back, we read in the papers about people in British North Borneo clamouring to know what is happening and what actually is in the Cobbold Commission Report.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You mean you want to enter Malaysia?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: So far as we know, Sir ---

The Prime Minister: That is the trouble with you. Your knowledge is always limited.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, Sir, when the Prime Minister went to Kuching and British North Borneo, all he did was to hide behind the radio and to play golf. He only saw one or two big shots. He never met the people and he never knew what was happening. I went to Kuching, Sir, and I met not the topnotchers, and I did not go and play golf.

An hon. Member: You played billiards!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And the Prime Minister dare not even go to Brunei because I hear they do not like him very much there. [Interruption] But, Sir, we know ---

The Prime Minister: He has gone back to London.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- what the people in Sarawak, in Brunei, and in British North Borneo want.

Mr Rajah: How do you know?

The Prime Minister: From his tutor in China, probably in repatriation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They have expressed through their political Parties their desire for self-determination, self-government and independence. For example, the Sarawak United People's Party, which has a party membership of 45,000 ---

An hon. Member: So much?

The Prime Minister: Stupendous, incredible!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- involving one in seven adults ---

The Prime Minister: That is the trouble. You always involve other people

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- in the whole of Sarawak and composing mostly of Ibans, Dayaks, and Melanaus. Sir, they have come out openly against Malaysia. And they have expressed their desire that they must have self-determination and self-government before they ever have any form of closer relationship with Malaya. Just to oblige our Prime Minister here, who was a very good friend of the Chairman of the Sarawak United People's Party, it was he who told me - even he thought the same thing - that at least 80 per cent of the people in Sarawak are against Malaysia. I ask him to write a letter to ask Mr Ong Kee Hui if he likes.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is not the Member for Queenstown perhaps anticipating the Report of the Cobbold Commission?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am not anticipating, it is general knowledge in Sarawak that the great majority of the people are against Malaysia.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You send a Lee Siew Choh Commission!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And if they want to talk about Brunei - 99 per cent in Brunei are against Malaysia.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Why not 100 per cent?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They had a Commision of Inquiry about five or six months ago in Brunei, and if they were to publish that report it would embarrass our Prime Mnister here very much indeed. [Interruption] I can tell you many stories about Brunei. Sir, just to convince our Prime Minister ---

Mr Speaker: Order. We do not want to hear stories about Brunei. Shall we now come back to the amendment to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: My point is this, Sir. We do not know what these terms are. If they are the terms which express the wishes and aspiratons of, the people of Sarawak, Brunei and British North Borneo, then we can understand why this alternative has been put up as a question and we can understand that it is an honest alternative. But as it is, the Member for Cairnhill seems to have known all about the Cobbold Commission Report. Our Prime Minister seems to have known all about the Cobbold Commission Report. Otherwise he would not have accepted it so easily. It is Q.E.D. Simple A, B, C.

An hon. Member: In cahoots!

Mr Byrne: What about D?

Mr Speaker: Order. [Laughter] I hope the Member for Queenstown is not going to laugh until midnight. He has got twelve minutes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They have been seling the line that everybody who is aganst Malaysia and everybody who is against merger is a Communist and only the Chinese are against Malaysia. Yet in Sarawak and in Brunei the majority of the people are non-Chinese and they are all against Malaysia and merger. What has the Prime Minister got to say? It only proves that what the P.A.P. have been saying to the people are all falsehoods. Sir, we felt the intensity of the anti-Malaysia feeling in Sarawak recently. I had occasion to go along to Sarawak recently, Sir ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Has all this got anything to do with with the amendment? We are talking about the terms - "to enter Malaysia on terms no less favourable than the terms for the Borneo territories". I do not think the feeling of the people in Sarawak would alter the terms.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is the whole trouble, Sir. We do not know what the terms are. But I know what the people in Sarawak want. This has been expressed not only through political Parties but also through civic organsations. There were also other forms of protest. But, of course, such news has to be suppressed by Radio P.A.P., and a lot & people in Singapore do not know about the intense feelings against Malaysia. That is why when you talk of terms not less favourable for the Borneo territories, it is very puzzling, Sir.

The Prime Minister: You are always puzzled. That is the trouble!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is impossible to believe that this alternative which the Member for Cairnhill wants to pose as a third question in the referendum is really an honest one. But as regards the alternative and how it compares with the others, I think I will only deal with it when I come to speak on our own amendment. But we believe that if there's any alternative on the terms of the Borneo territories, then it must be the terms which express the wishes and aspirations of the people in Borneo. If they are merely terms imposed on them by the colonial Government, then they are not terms which can be very favourable to those territories. The only way to find out whether such terms express the wishes of the people on not is to first have a general election in those Borneo territories. Only then do we consider that it is a fair alternative and an honest one. As it is, Sir, it is like buying a pig in a poke, and it is definitely unfair to the people of Singapore. Surely we do not expect the people to choose something they hardly know anything about. Does the Member for Cairnhill suggest that we give a blank cheque to the P.A.P. after all their distrtions and dishonesty? That is asking a bit too much, Sir. For this reason we oppose this amendment to put this third question to the people. Of course, we must try and understand the motivation behind this so-called third alternative which the Government so willingly accept as a third alternative to be posed to the people in the referendum. They hope to gain a great deal from the confusion that will be caused in the minds of the people by having more alternatives. I do now know how their mathematical calculation works, but by the division of votes which oppose the White Paper, they hope they would thereby be able to confuse a good section of the people of Singapore to supporting their White Paper merger proposals. It becomes more difficult to understand this third question suggested by the Member for Cairnhill especially when we remember that S.P.A. have publicly stated that they support this White Paper merger proposals. How do you reconcile their contradiction? It does not work out. The S.P.A. support the White Paper merger proposals. The White Paper merger proposals are going to be posed as one question. Yet the S.P.A. are now suggesting a new question. Do these two questions amount to the same question? Or are they different? If they are different, then the S.P.A. must come out openly and say that they oppose the White Paper merger proposals. How do they reconcile all this contradiction? There seems to be some confused thinking.

Mr Rajah: No, no!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I hope that the Member for Farrer Park, who says "No, no, no", will be able to enlighten us. But all in all, we do not believe this alternative which they want to suggest to the people is an honest one. It is meant to help the P.A.P. and to further confuse the people as regards how they should oppose the P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals. I hope that if the S.P.A. were really sincere in their offering an alternative to the people, then let them go back to their original stand, namely, let them suggest , and let the P.A.P. accept, their orginal stand of first posing a question that asks for a "yes" or "no". If it is a "no" it becomes

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is repeating himself. Let him come to a different tack. Only two minutes more.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I intend to finish, Sir, I just want to remind the S.P.A. that if they were sincere, then they should go back to their stand and not keep on somersaulting. Their stand, as orignally stated and as appeared in black and white in the Select Committee proceedines, is, let there be first a question on merger itself, "yes" or "no"; and following a "yes", let the different forms of merger be posed. As it is, we feel that the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. are just in cahoots hoping to deceive the people in order that they may push through their White Paper merger proposals.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 14: Absent, 9. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad Jabri bin Bani, S. T. Mohammad Akib Chan Sun Wing. Buang bin Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Lingam, S. V. Chor Yeok Eng. Low Por Tuck. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Kandasamy, G. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Kuan Yew. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Teck Him. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Yew Hock. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Aiwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Ayes-contd. Absent. M.Ismail Rahim. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Rajah, A. P. Fung Yin Ching, Ramaswamy, S. Miss. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Koh, C. H. Thio Chan Bee. Marshall, David. Toh Chin Chye. Rajaratnam, S. Wee Toon Boon. Sahorah binte Yaacob bin Mohamed. Ahmat, Madam. Yong Nyuk Lin. Tan Cheng Tong.

Amendnent accordingly agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Time for adjournment