REFERENDUM ON REUNIFICATION OF SINGAPORE AND FEDERATION OF MALAYA

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Origial Question [9th July, 1962] as amended [10th July, l962],

"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; or

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

Which 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 tha 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.".-[The Prime Minister].

Original Question, as amended, again proposed.

2.38 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, last week during the debate on the Singapore National. Referendum Bill enough evidence has been produced to show that the Barisan Sosialis do not want a referendum on merger. I will provide further evidence to show that the reason why they do not want a referendum is that they do not want merger between Singapore and the Federation, although they pay lip service to a merger policy.

On 2nd June, 1961, leaders of the Barisan Sosialis issued a statement announcing that they advocated internal self-government for Singapore without the Internal Security Council and agreed to Defence and Foreign Affairs remaining in the hands of the British. This stand by the six Barisan leaders was ridiculed not only by us but also by the Member for Anson. Such a stand on the abolition of the Internal Security Council will bring practically no change to Singapore's constitutional development. In fact, it meant that the Barisan Sosialis was advocating the continuation of ---

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): On a point of guidance, Sir.

Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: May we know what the Deputy Prime Minister is now speaking on - whether it is on the original Question or the amendment itself?

Mr Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to speak on the motion, as amended, the motion which I have proposed to the House.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I was saying, Mr Speaker, that this proposal by the six leaders of the Barisan Sosialis really meant a continuation of the semi-colonial status of Singapore. When this idea of the Barisan leaders was laughed at and ridiculed by the people, the Barisan Sosialis quickly changed their stand and thought out a new plan. And on 28th August, 1961, they issued a manifesto which was referred to by the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Queenstown, in a debate on the 18th April, 1962. I quote from the revised transcript of 18th April, 1962 [Vol. 17, No. 9, col. 888]:

'Dr Lee Siew Choh: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I will now, therefore, read to the House our document as issued by the Barisan Sosialis on the 28th August, 1961. That document is the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on our constitutional future. I will skip the irrelevant parts and go on to the part which follows the issue of Penang and Malacca. It reads as follows:

"The way ahead for real reunification of our country and our people is in one of two directions:

(a) an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent state like Penang or Malacca -"

those are the operative words -"

Let me repeat, "those are the operative words". Now, the stupidity of the Barisan Sosialis in advocating merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca was, in fact, pointed out as early as 23rd November, 1961, when during a debate on merger it was the Member for Anson who said - let me quote Hansard. Vol 15, No. 7, col. 574:

`We will come to Penang and Malacca where the Barisan Sosialis, having no legal consultant, really slipped...'.

Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that the Barisan Sosialis slipped not because they had no legal consultant. In fact, when the 13 Barisan Assemblymen defected from the P.A.P., they also made great play that they had their own legal advisers; one of them was Mr T. T. Rajah.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): And a few more.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The error of the Barisan Sosialis lies in the superficial manner in which they consider weighty problems of the State. It is fantastic indeed for a political Party like the Barisan to change its stand as easily as its leaders change their trousers!

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): How do you know they change their trousers?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: They might not have changed their trousers perhaps, but the Member for Cairnhill could perhaps investigate by the smell.

Now, when we pointed out to the Barisan Sosialis that it was not possible for Singapore to merge with the Federation on the basis of Penang and Malacca, they refused to acknowledge the mistake. And finally it was left to the Member for Hong Lim to point out publicly this error in the thinking of the Barisan Sosialis. At the radio forum on 14th June, 1962, this was what the Member for Hong Lim said - let me quote:

`Just now the Prime Minister has mentioned about the Barisan's stand of Penang and Malacca type of merger. My attitude towards this is that perhaps they have once made a mistake.'

Yes, Mr Speaker, the Barisan has soiled its political trousers. We told them there was a stain on their trousers but they would not believe it. This was probably because we were sitting facing them. The Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim, being seated behind the Barisan Sosialis, could see the stain on the Barisan trousers more clearly. And they finally convinced the Barisan of their mistake. So it was that the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson succeeded in persuading the Barisan Sosialis to move a resolution for complete merger, even if it would mean the control of education and labour policies by the Central Government. In fact, the Member for Anson, during the debate last year on merger, was so excited at the prospect of having found an alliance in the Barisan Sosialis and so delighted that he had found a new formula that he had this to say (Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 7, col. 583):

`Sir, I do not want to exaggerate. I cannot exaggerate. But I shall put it very simply. In fact, Sir, I will be quite frank that if education and labour were given to the Federation, the White Paper would be more acceptable to me, and I do not care if it means the end of my political career.'

Members of this House will remember the Member for Anson's public announcement that he was finished with politics after he had resigned as Chief Minister and failed to appear in a by-election in Cairnhill. We all know too well by now how much weight we can attach to the words of the Member for Anson. The history of his political antics shows that he is one of the denizens of never, never land. Those who live in never, never land never, never mean what they say. The Member for Anson was so delighted that he had found an alliance in the Barisan Sosialis - continued in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 7, col. 566:

`Sir, I must say that I learned with some surprise and delight from the Member for Queenstown that his Party - to me, as far as I can understand, a Party that represents the industrial Chinese worker, I do not know about the others - were prepared to accept Federation control of education policy, and I say hear, hear!'

Now if the Barisan Sosialis, or for that matter the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson, are sincere about their declarations, then rightly they should go out and propagate to the people that they wish for complete merger with the Federation even if it means control of education and labour policies by the Central Government. But have they really done that? Mr Speaker, they have instead been spending their time in denouncing the referendum and the White Paper proposals. What is astounding is that the Barisan Sosialis should, within the space of one year, have changed its stand on merger three times. Three times! First, they wanted internal self-government without the Internal Security Council - the British to retain foreign affairs and defence. After this idea had been ridiculed by the people, they advocated merger like Penang and Malacca. When this new line was pointed out to them as a mistake by the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim, they proposed in this House complete merger, even if it meant the control of education and labour policies by the Central Government.

Mr Speaker, can the people of Singapore allow a political Party like the Barisan Sosialis to be in charge of the destiny of their future when such a political Party has no firm stand, no fixed policies and has no idea what constitutional changes mean to the livelihood of the people: a Party like the Barisan Sosialis which takes directives, from outside, which takes directives or advice even from their opponents, the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson? Even the erstwhile revolutionaries in the Barisan Sosialis have lost confidence in their own Party and in their leadership. We know, Mr Speaker, that the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong, dispatched a mystery letter to the Prime Minister of the Federation, and by hand too. What the contents of this letter are, we do not know. I do not believe that any of the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen knows what is in this letter either.

An hon. Member: Shame!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Could it be another change in the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on merger? Or is this a secret sell-out? All these antics of the Barisan Sosialis clearly show their immaturity in the handling of public affairs. We dread to think of the consequences if the affairs of this country are allowed to: be managed by the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan Sosialis can feed the people with slogans. But the people will remain hungry. What the people want is an assurance that they will have food to eat and water to drink. Not Barisan falsehoods and slogans rammed down their throats.

Sir, two days ago, the Member for Anson made great play about the spirit of the Reid Constitutional Report. In fact, he had moved an amendment, which reads: 'merger as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states with automatic Federation citizenship for all Singapore citizens in accordance with the spirit of the Reid Report and the constitutional documents of the Federation, 1948 and 1957.'

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister is right when he says that the amendment was moved. Notice was given but it was not moved.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the correction. The amendment was not moved, but notice of the amendment was given along these lines. The Member for Anson goes back to 1948 and 1957. But he forgets that we are living in 1962. The spirit of the Reid Report is already embodied in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. This Constitution was gazetted on 11th December, 1957. In so far as those clauses relating to the admission of new territories and the question of citizenship by incorporation of territories are concerned, this Constitution still holds good. Article 2 of the Constitution says:

`Parliament by law may admit other States to the Federation.'

And Article 22 states:

`If any new territory is admitted to the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, Parliament may by law determine what, persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates from, which such persons are to be citizens.'

It means, in fact, that there is no question of automatic citizenship as demanded by the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim. Indeed, the Member for Anson argued that there was no provision for the transfer of automatic citizenship in the Federation Constitution. How those citizens who have connection with the territory that has joined the Federation after 1957 can become citizens of the Federation can only be decided by an Act of the Federation Parliament. This means that finally it is the Federation Government which must be responsible for passing this Act. Therefore, citizenship proposals must be negotiated with the Federation Government. To claim for automatic citizenship is quite contrary to the provisions of the Federation Constitution. To ask the people to vote for something for which no provision is made constitutionally is indeed to deceive the people. After he had spent considerable time reading the Report of the Reid Commission and arguing in its favour, we were indeed astounded that the Member for Anson announced, that he did not wish to move his amendment. The frivolity with which the Member for Anson introduces motions and withdraws them shows his utter disregard for other Members of this House. We therefore cannot regard him as a man to be considered seriously.

If the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P. and the Workers' Party are honest in their intention for a closer relationship with the Federation, then they ought to adopt a more realistic attitude and seek to explain to the people what can really be achieved now instead of dangling objectives which they know very well cannot be obtained in the immediate future.

Yesterday the Barisan Sosialis opposed the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill to add a third alternative in the proposals for the referendum. This proposal by the Member for Cairnhill suggested that Singapore should enter Malaysia on no less favourable terms than the Borneo territories. Let me remind the House that during the debate on merger, one of the points which the Barisan Sosialis harped upon was that whereas the Federation was prepared to accept the Borneo territories as constituent States of the Federation. Singapore was being treated on a less favourable level. In fact, in their argument they suggested, that Singapore should be treated at par with the Borneo territories. It was surprising indeed that the Member for Queenstown, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, should have opposed the entry of Singapore into Malaysia on no less favourable terms than the Borneo territories. This stand of the Barisan Sosialis can be explained in the light of our knowledge of their opposition towards the formation of Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis do not want Malaysia. Neither do they want Singapore to enter Malaysia. Why, Sir? The reason is that the Barisan Sosialis are following the line of the P.K.I., the Communist Party of Indonesia, which opposes the Malaysia Plan. During the debate on West Irian, the Member for Thomson let the cat out of the bag why the Barisan was against Malaysia. Mr Speaker. I could not get hold of a copy of Hansard for this debate, and I have to resort to newspaper reports of this debate. This was what the Straits Times of 20th January, 1962 (page 4) had to say:

`He [Mr Bani] said Malaysia was an anti-Indonesia plan. Mr David Marshall asked if Mr Bani would explain what he meant when he said that Malaysia was an anti-Indonesia plan.

Mr Bani continued: "We have been accused of being anti-Malaysia. Our attitude is quite simple. We support the concept of Malaysia."

He said that an original plan for Malaysia had included Indonesia, but the plan of Tunku Abdul Rahman excluded Indonesia.'.

The Member for Thomson cannot deny saying that Malaysia was anti-Indonesia because it did not include Indonesia. In fact, during the debate on Malaysia, the Member for Anson vigorously protested against this stand of the Barisan Sosialis. I quote from the Straits Times of the 25th of January, 1962, page 12:

`Referring to a statement made by Mr S. T. Barn (Barisan-Thomson) during the debate on West Irian that Malaysia was anti-Indonesia, Mr David Marshall said he could not accept this.

"To say that the Malaysia Plan was anti-Indonesia could suggest only one thing, that the Barisan Sosialis considered the North Borneo territories should be part of Indonesia and not part of Malaysia."'

Sir, ever since the Assembly and the people of Singapore became involved in the question of merger and Malaysia, the conspiracies of the Barisan Sosialis to prevent and hinder merger to stop Malaysia have been exposed. They are an utterly insincere and dishonest group of people who do not have the national interest at heart, but only seek ---

Mr Bani: Bluff!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: --- to promote the interest of the Communist movement in South-East Asia ---

An hon. Member: Do not bluff yourself!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: It hurts them, Mr Speaker. As stooges of the P.K.I., they are prepared to stoop to the strategy of fighting the referendum, fighting merger and Malaysia and all this against the national interest of Singapore, the Federation and the Borneo territories. In this very debate itself, the Barisan Sosialis in their last desperate moments once more reveal with ease the fluidity with which they change their stand. They move one amendment to the motion we are debating. But even before a vote had been taken on this amendment, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, indicated that his Party would introduce another amendment.

Sir, the antics of the Barisan Sosialis are of no avail, because the people have no confidence in their Party which seeks to remove the British ---

Mr Bani: Why do you not try ---

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Let me repeat it so that they can hear it better. The antics of the Barisan Sosialis are of no avail because the people have no confidence in their Party which seeks to remove British colonialism in order to substitute another type of foreign imperialism.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move an amendment ---

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just remind the hon. Member that he may speak on the motion as well, because he is now speaking on the main motion. He will not have another opportunity of speaking on the main motion. At the same time, he can move the amendment.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): I seek your guidance, Sir. Can I speak again on this?

Mr Speaker: I am afraid not. The procedure is that the Member for Queenstown when he moved his amendment was speaking on the main motion. Therefore, he is now prohibited from speaking again on the main motion. The Member for Thomson has not done so as yet. The Member for Cairnhill has spoken on the main motion when he moved his amendment. The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken on the main motion. And now the Member for Thomson is speaking on the main motion. Any Member who has not as yet spoken on the main motion may do so. But there is nothing to prevent those Members from speaking on any amendments that may be moved now.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, as an amendment,

"at end, to add `or

(d) genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day'.".

Sir, this amendment will put forth in the referendum a proposition which, in fact, will be the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the merger issue ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Another stand, is it?

Mr Bani: Sir, I do not wish to comment on what the Deputy Prime Minister has said at this juncture ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You had better not.

Mr Bani: --- and he will get his answers in good time. The only direct comment that I want to make is that I am sure he does not believe half of what he has said just now.

Sir, this concept of merger has been supported by the Workers' Party and the United People's Party in this Assembly in November last year. I refer you. Mr Speaker, to col. 406 of the debate of 21st November, 1961. You will note, Sir, that the proposition I now make to be put to the people is, in fact, word for word, the same as the amendment moved on 21st November, 1961, to the P.A.P. Government motion on the reunification of the two territories. You will recall, Sir, that this amendment was opposed by the P.A.P. and was subsequently defeated in this Assembly. Sir, the sentiments on this amendment have been thoroughly discussed in the debate held last year. Our points of view have been explained clearly and they are in black and white in the records of the Assembly. I do not propose to repeat them.

Sir, it has been said that the Barisan Sosialis made a mistake in asking for complete merger.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: He thinks of getting complete merger.

Mr Bani: Government Members, to substantiate their allegation, have attempted to quote the Member for Hong Lim as though he is an authority on Barisan affairs, as saying that we had made a mistake ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Certainly, the Barisan ---

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister not to interject so often?

Mr Bani: To some extent, Sir, they have also tried to quote the Member for Anson. But, as you are aware, Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Anson has refuted this. Today the P.A.P. use half truths and untruths to keep this afloat. The Member for Hong Lim once used an analogy of the Johore type of merger. Sir, the P.A.P. has twisted that to mean that he wants the Johore type of merger. Sir, I do not want to suggest that the Menther for Hong Lim has made a mistake. In all fairness to him, I must say he merely made the analogy in the context of a speech that he was making. But the desperate P.A.P. have tried to use that to make political capital. The Member for Hong Lim unwittingly played into the P.A.P. hands. Sir, we must correct this and straighten it out once and for all. There is no question of a mistake by the Barisan. Sir, we have stated in the past very clearly that we want merger. We have stated that we want complete merger. We have stated that we want a merger which is genuine and which can bring about genuine national unity. We have also stated that, in our view, merger arrangements which will create different classes of citizens, which will only further the disunity among our people and which will deny the people of Singapore a common political life with their brothers and sisters in the Federation, will not constitute genuine merger and will not bring about genuine national unity. There is no mistake about this, Mr Speaker. The records show clearly our stand. Because today the P.A.P. are politically bankrupt, they seek to distort and use half truths and untruths to defend their actions which are detrimental to national unity. Therefore, Sir, they have sought to use our analogy of Penang and Malacca, to use this completely out of context is order to distort our stand, because they hope by doing this they will show that our proposition will mean the disfranchisement of half of our citizens. They seek to discredit us by saying that we want half of our citizens to lose their citizenship rights. They have done this in the same way as they attempted to distort the analogy of Johore which was used by the Member for Hong Lim.

Sir, there is no mistake as I have already stated. We have clearly asked for genuine merger with all Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on merger. Just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Deputy Prime Minister was speaking, he sought to suggest that the call for complete internal self-government was inconsistent with the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the merger issue. Sir, I do not want to start the debate on the whole question of reunification all over again. We have dealt with this matter at great length in the debate on the question of merger in this House last year. This cheap tactic of the P.A.P. to try and distort is not going to help them one wee bit.

Sir, they say that we are communal in our approach and yet they seek to harp on autonomy in labour and education. They say that the Barisan made a mistake by asking for complete merger, because in a complete merger there will be no autonomy in education and labour. Sir, in all honesty, if the Government Members would admit, they would say that this is directed at the Chinese population in Singapore, and they have the cheek to stand up and say that it is the Barisan Sosialis that is playing the Chinese line.

As I said, I have no intention of re-opening the debate on the whole question of merger. We have debated it at great length and our conscience is clear because we have no dirt to hide. As I also said, we are not the least perturbed at all these twists and turns, at all these lies and distortions of the P.A.P.

Sir, the Prime Minister said that what the Government offer are realistic alternatives. We dispute this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Our people should not be compelled to choose one of these alternatives simply because the P.A.P. consider them realistic. What the P.A.P. consider realistic is not necessarily good for our people. It is not interest of national reunification. When the P.A.P. say that these alternatives are realistic, what they do, in fact, mean is necessarily in the that these are terms which are acceptable to the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Surely, Sir, what the Federation is prepared to accept is not necessarily good for the people of Singapore; it is not necessarily fair to the people of Singapore.

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis refuse to accept the position where merger terms for Singapore are dictated by a handful of people in the Federation of Malaya. The fate of the people of Singapore should not be made to depend on the charity of a few men who hold power in their hands in the Federation.

Sir, merger must mean genuine national reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. It must mean the genuine national unity of our people. This cannot be achieved if the people of Singapore are going to be treated as slaves.

Sir, the P.A.P. say, "Merger now or never."

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I never said that. "Merger now or later." There will be merger.

Mr Bani: They say that if there is to be no merger now there will be no merger forever. The Prime Minister obviously denies this.

The Prime Minister: I never said that.

Mr Bani: He will have his opportunity of refuting what I said. But there has been a suggestion in the past that either you accept merger on whatever the terms now or you will be doomed forever. Sir, this has been put to the Opposition in this House. This has been put to the people of Singapore in the form of threats, and the impression the P.A.P. seek to create is this: if we do not have merger on the terms they propose, then that would be the end of Singapore. That, in short, simply means that either you have merger now on the terms that the Federation Government are prepared to give, or you do not have merger in the future.

The Prime Minister: Nonsense!

Mr Bani: However, we do not subscribe ---

Mr Speaker: Order. This is a debate of some importance. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to get up now on a point of elucidation.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, never at any time will anybody in his right mind suggest that if there is no merger now there is to be no merger forever, for one very simple reason: that the analysis is that merger is inevitable. It either takes place now peacefully by consent or it will take place at some subsequent time with a great deal of trial and tribulation amidst general commotion for everybody and unhappiness for the whole of Malaya, including Singapore.

Mr Bani: Sir, if the P.A.P. Government seriously believe that merger is inevitable - as we do believe that merger is historically inevitable - we say that if today we cannot get terms that are fair and reasonable to our people, we shall wait. We shall not be bullied and bulldozed into accepting terms that are unreasonable because the P.A.P. want to save their political career. I say that if they are honest in saying that they believe merger to be historically inevitable, then there is no need for this unnecessary hate. Sir, we believe that national reunification is inevitable and I say that if we have to wait for terms - if at all we have to wait; in the first place, we are not sure whether we have to wait, we are not sure whether the Federation Government will refuse out request for automatic Federal citizenship ---

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: I would like to refer the hon. Member to a letter written by the Prime Minister of the Federation - which was as a result of a formal exchange of letters - tabled in this House, dated 13th November, 1961, and it is stated in the second last paragraph of this letter:

`May I reiterate that the argument that all Singapore Citizens at the time of merger should automatically become Federation citizens cannot find acceptance under our Constitution?'

This is a formal document which has been tabled in this House.

Mr Bani: Sir, I shall shortly deal with the constitutional aspect of getting automatic citizenship. But what I do want to say here at this moment is briefly this. We consider that the P.A.P. are not in a position to negotiate terms with the Federation Government.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): There is nothing to stop you from negotiating with them.

Mr Bani: Sir, one cannot negotiate for terms if one does not have the moral standing to negotiate for them. Sir, the Government of the Federation of Malaya is not naive. The men who hold power in the Federation of Malaya are fully aware of the political situation in Singapore and they know to what extent the P.A.P. command the support of the people of Singapore. They know - although they may not admit it - that today the P.A.P. are not in a position to express the feelings of the people. They are morally not in a position to negotiate for terms for the people of Singapore. The Member for cairnhill indicated this many times when he made fun of the so-called autonomy in labour and education which the P.A.P. say had been got as a result of hard bargaining.

Sir, it is clear that today the White Paper terms are being given to the P.A.P. Government and they have no other choice than to accept these terms. Our call have a conference of all the Parties in Singapore so that a common stand could be put to the Federation Government on the terms was not accepted by the P.A.P. And today the Prime Minister says that we can negotiate. We tell the P.A.P., Sir, that if they seriously want us to negotiate for terms, let them dissolve this Assembly, hold the elections and whichever party that Comes to power can negotiate for terms. They would then have a fresh and direct mandate from the people of Singapore.

Sir, as I was saying, if we have to wait for better terms, in our view, that does not mean that we will never have merger. The Federation Government are bound to change their views if they do not want to accept our terms just now. Sir, it is well known that at one time they said, "No merger under any circumstances." But now they are prepared to consider merger of some sort. Sir, this is a sure indication that their views are bound to change further. And I say that this is historically inevitable. Of course, the P.A.P. cannot wait. We understand why they say this. We have stated time and again that the interest the P.A.P. have in these merger proposals is only to the extent that they will save their political career. We have no doubt whatsoever that the fate of the P.A.P. rests on their White Paper merger proposals, and that is why there is this hate, that is why there is going to be this unfair referendum, and that is why the P.A.P. say that they cannot wait.

Sir, the P.A.P. keep on saying that it is impossible to get Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. Sir, the Federal Constitution, particularly Article 22, makes it possible for the Federation Government to determine the terms for any territory on merger with the Federation. That Article, as in fact the Member for Anson has indicated earlier, has been inserted in the constitution primarily for the purposes of deciding on terms on merger of a new territory.

Sir, a lot of words have been uttered by the P.A.P. to try and ridicule our call for automatic Federal citizenship. Sir, by automatic citizenship, we do not mean that the Prime Minister has only to go to the Federation and play golf and on Merger Day every Singapore Citizen will automatically become a Federal citizen. We have never suggested this. We have never suggested that we can get automatic Federal citizenship if we do not talk it over with the Federation of Malaya. We have said that this is a matter that has to be negotiated and we say again that automatic citizenship is something that has to be negotiated with the Federation.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What makes you think you can write it into the Constitution?

Mr Bani: Sir, this is yet another point on which the P.A.P. have sought to bluff the people. I do not want to say anything more at this juncture [Interruption] because at the right time and at the right place, not too long, you will know what the contents of the letters are. I must say this here, Sir. This is a reflection of the P.A.P. tactics.

The Prime Minister: The Barisan Sosialis!

Mr Bani: The Prime Minister, as a private chap, sent a private letter to some close colleagues of his in maybe some part of the Federation on things that have got to do with the political life of this country. His Central Executive Committee does not know what letter he sent. Sir - the Member for Bras Basah is not here - only recently she said that although she was a member of the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P., she did not know what was happening in the P.A.P. And the 13 of us in the Barisan Sosialis know that this is how they operate. But - and this is thought projection - because they do this, they think we also know.

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: All my correspondence with the Tunku has been published. It has been tabled in this House, and there is nothing to prevent the Member for Thomson from publishing his exchange of letters.

Mr Speaker: I think yesterday we had a promise from the Member for Choa Chu Kang that those letters would be published, or one letter would be published. Now the Member for Thomson has indicated that they will be published. So perhaps the Prime Minister can be a little patient. That letter will be published, as I understand from the remarks made.

Mr Bani: They keep saying more - that it is a sell-out, that this is this, and this is that. But at the end they will know ---

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Eat their words.

Mr Bani: --- that they will have to eat their words; yes, that is right. But anyway I do not want to deal with this matter at this moment.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): He does not dare to offend his master.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Do you know what is in the letter?

Mr Speaker: Order. I can see the Front Bench on the Government side seething with impatience. The letter will come, I understand.

Mr Bani: Sir, as I said, we have stated that automatic Federal citizenship is a matter that has to be negotiated. We say that again that this is a matter that has to be negotiated. Sir, here it is interesting to recount the P.A.P. lies on citizenship. Once they said that Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens was impossible. When we exposed this lie by explaining that under the Federal Constitution it was possible for the Federation Government to grant Federal citizenship to all our citizens, the P.A.P. changed their line. This time they said it was reasonable. When we again exposed this, they again changed their line. And this time they talked in terms of super merger. Sir, I am sure we have never heard of this term "super merger" when the merger issue was debated in this House. The super merger talk only came about after the debate on the Referendum Bill started. They said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Barisan wanted more merger than the P.A.P. Sir, we tell them: we do not want more merger or less merger. What the P.A.P. seek to do is to get something very much less than merger. We want merger.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of information. Sir.

Mr Speaker: Arising from the speech?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Bani: No. Sir. The Minister will have his opportunity. I do not want my speech interrupted more than is necessary. I am sure the Minister has an opportunity to speak on this amend, ment. He will no doubt be given the opportunity.

As I said, we do not want less merger or more merger. We want merger that will genuinely bring about national reunification.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You want complete merger.

Mr Bani: We want complete merger ---

The Prime Minister: That is right.

Mr Bani: --- on terms that are reasonable to the people of Singapore. We want terms that will not make our people second-class.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: How second-class?

Mr Bani: The P.A.P. attempt to hold a dishonest referendum, because they know that if they hold a genuine referendum, an honest referendum, the people will show them whether what they are getting is merger, less merger, bogus merger, or what have they.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the Member for Thomson mentioned second-class citizens. I have already made it clear that in the opinion of the distinguished lawyer with him in his anti-merger campaign, there is no second-class citizen, and I would be greatly obliged if he would just answer the questions which I raised yesterday. Please do Second-class citizen - how?

Mr Speaker: Order. We are in open meeting. Perhaps in Committee straight talk across the Table is permissible sometimes. But I do not propose to answer those questions.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to answer those questions apart from saying "yes". I am not a legal man and I am not using "second-class citizen" as a legal term. I am not interested in what legally second-class citizenship means. I am a layman and there are not very many lawyers out of 1.6 million people. The vast majority of them, 99.9 per cent recurrent, are laymen like me, and they know that if on merger there is going to be no common political life given to the people, if they are not going to be given the same rights and privileges as the citizens in the 11 other States in the Federation of Malaya, then they are treated as second-class citizens.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: How?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You wait.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Bani: Sir, the P.A.P.'s attempt to hold a dishonest referendum is, in fact, to escape a categorical rejection of their White Paper proposals. Sir, the White Paper proposals are "no merger", and this is no Communist propaganda. This is what the Member for Cairnhill has said over and over again. He says it is merely a form of closer relationship. Sir, the Barisan is quite rightly against the White Paper proposals which the P.A.P. are trying to sell as merger.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You want complete merger.

Mr Bani: We are told that the White Paper is merger. The Member for Cairnhill, who is a more trusted friend of the Federation Government than our Prime Minister ---

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

Mr Speaker: The Member will not give way.

Mr Bani: Sir, the Member for Cairnhill, who is a more trusted friend of the Federation of Malaya than our Prime Minister is, says this is no merger. The White Paper proposals do not constitute merger. And we say it is not merger. But when we say this is not a merger, they say we want to frustrate merger. Why do they not say that the S.P.A. also want to frustrate merger, because the S.P.A. say this is closer relationship? The S.P.A. say this is no merger.

Sir, the P.A.P. want a referendum on the White Paper because they are committed to holding one. We want a fair referendum. This the P.A.P. are not prepared to hold, because they know the people will reject the White Paper proposals in a fair and reasonable referendum. The Government oppose the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown which would have meant only one question. Now, Sir, we move this amendment, knowing full well that this is not going to be just one question but alternatives. And this amendment will put our stand to the people clearly.

Sir, the only decent thing the Government can do is to accept the amendment. The Deputy Prime Minister says we do not have the support of the people; he says we are inconsistent; we do not have consistent policies. The Deputy Prime Minister has even suggested that we made a mistake by asking for complete merger, and that only their proposals for merger are fair proposals and only those will be accepted by the people. Here, Sir, there is an opportunity for them to accept the challenge - accept the amendment; the stand of the Barisan Sosialis as has been debated in this House last year at quite some length. Then we will see what the outcome is.

Sir, a referendum is to ascertain the views of our people. It is not to force the people to support the White Paper proposals. The Government's obligation is to put the Barisan proposals to the people. It is not for the P.A.P. to decide whether the proposal is good or bad. It is for the people to decide. If this amendment is accepted, Sir, and if this proposal is put to the people, we will accept the verdict of the people whichever way it goes.

3.44 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has done a lot of somersaults before. But last night he said very clearly and categorically that he would like to present all forms of merger to the people. He said he would support that. And that was why he presented the third question. Now we have put up the fourth question which embodies the stand of the Opposition as was debated in the Legislative Assembly last year. Although the S.P.A. did not support our amendment then, I think, to be fair to himself as well as to everybody and to make sure he will not have to eat his own words again, the Member for Cairnhill should support our amendment, because it will allow a chance to the people to have a real choice of all the forms of merger which the political Parties in this House have put forward.

Sir, if you see the alternatives which are put before the House at the present moment, the first two are from the P.A.P., the third is supposedly from the S.P.A. But, as I have already indicated, they all come from the same source and have the same theme. They are all tailored to suit the whims and fancies of Federal politicians and, of course, since they are acceptable to the Federal politicians, they are presented to the House. But let us ask all our representatives in this House: let them ask themselves solemnly whether they are representatives of the people of Singapore, or whether they are representatives of the Federation. Let us ask them: when they were elected to this Assembly, whether the general elections were held in Kuala Lumpur or in Singapore.

An hon. Member: Peking.

Mr Rajah: Not in Peking either.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know whether our Prime Minister was elected in Tanjong Pagar or in Tanjong Rambutan! Because if we are representatives of Singapore, then we must speak on behalf of the interests of Singapore.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And not ---

An hon. Member: Peking.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- for the interests of other places. I remember, Sir, that the Prime Minister last year during the merger debate suggested to us that we could ask Mr Lim Kean Siew and Mr Seenivasagam of the Socialist Front and the Progressive Party respectively to put a motion in the Federal Parliament to suggest automatic citizenship on merger. That is an absurd suggestion and that alone goes to prove that our suggestion of automatic citizenship was not unrealistic. Even the Tunku himself said so, that it was possible. At that time he said the only thing was that he would not grant it. That is all. But it was possible. That is the point which we want to stress, and what the Member for Thomson has already stressed.

The only trouble with our Prime Minister and the P.A.P. is that they went to negotiate on bended knees and they never had the support of the people of Singapore behind them. I do not want to repeat what the Member for Thomson has already said. The fact that our stand on merger is good is even admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education the other night. He said, "Yes, the Barisan Sosialis stand is very good."

Mr David Marshall: He does not understand it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The only thing, he said, was that it was not realistic. Let us ask him - realistic to whom? To himself or to the people of Singapore? Of course, Sir, it may sound unrealistic to certain people, perhaps to P.A.P. politicians, or perhaps to Federation politicians at the present moment, or to the Prime Minister who has to run to the Federation for succours in order that he may get the hand-outs to keep him in office. But to us in Singapore, Sir, our suggestion for automatic citizenship and proportional representation is very realistic. To us it means the only basis for merger. It is the only fair and just basis for merger, because, as you know, Sir, merger is not only a merger of two territories but also a merger of two peoples. If you want to have merger, then you must have the mutual consent of the peoples of the two territories.

The conditions of merger must work towards mutual interest and mutual benefit. That is the only way we can have a happy merger and a happy Malaysia. If you have one party having all the advantages over the other, you are just laying the ground for future trouble. That would not lead to national unity. It would lead to national disunity, as we have stressed time and time again. Therefore, when we talk of merger - even if we want to talk on the mode and manner of merger - our choices must not be limited to what other people want to accept. The choices must be on what we in Singapore want. I hope the Front Bench on this side of the House as well as the P.A.P. will realise this. It is only when you really ascertain the views of the people in Singapore that you can say that you have an honest referendum. If you pose questions which are limited to the choices of the P.A.P., then it is ascertaining the views of the P.A.P. and not of the people. The Prime Minister himself has repeatedly said that the referendum is to ascertain the views of the majority of the people of Singapore - the views of the people of Singapore, and not the views of the P.A.P. Let him remember that. In any honest referendum, the people should be allowed an opportunity to express their wishes and choice on the mode and manner - even if they insist on this "mode and manner". From our point of view, we think that our stand on merger - complete merger with automatic citizenship and proportional representation - will have the backing of the majority of the people of Singapore. Therefore, if the P.A.P. want to put up a semblance of honesty - they are not honest; everybody knows it - but even if they want to put up a semblance of honesty - let them accept our amendment and put up our stand for the people to accept or reject. The Member for Anson gave a very picturesque analogy the other day. He spoke about a girl wanting to get married to a man. If she wants to get married to A, it does not mean that she must accept B, C, or D who happens to come along. Surely she has a right to wait until A comes along. Of course on merger, Sir, we can wait. The only trouble with the Prime Minister is that he cannot afford to wait, because merger to him is the means of political survival. Without merger he knows he is finished.

Mr David Marshall: He is finished anyway.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, I agree. He is finished anyway.

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems to be a habit in this Chamber for supporters of a speaker to interject. I have never come across that in any other Parliament. We get interjections from across the Floor, but not from Back-benches. And it happens on both sides of the House.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The whole trouble with our Prime Minister is that he wants to deliver Singapore bound hand and foot to the Federation because - I do not know - maybe he hopes to be a Tun sometime, maybe he hopes to get a safe seat in the Senate; maybe he is thinking of becoming a United Nations representative, and somebody has said that he is looking forward to being the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. I do not know. Anyone of these is a possibility.

An hon. Member: In fact, he is a Prime Minister!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But the main thing is this. If we are to go in, we must go in on terms which are fair and just to the people of Singapore, not just to the P.A.P. Let them remember this. They always give the excuse that the White Paper merger proposals were the best that they could get. They say that those were the best possible terms that they could get. The Member for Thomson has stressed that at that time they were in no position to negotiate, and therefore how could they get better terms? On this particular aspect, even the Secretary-General of the S.P.A. has, on many occasions, publicly stated that the present terms are not the best possible terms. The Member for Cairnhill also says he could get better terms for Singapore on merger; let him deny it after this. Therefore, those so-called best possible terms are not the best possible terms. The Member for Thomson reminded us that at one time the Tunku did not want merger. Now they have come round to wanting merger. We know for a fact that they want Singapore so much that if only we stand firm the terms will have to be improved. It is not that we want to get into the Federation. It is the Federation wanting to take in Singapore. Let us remember that very carefully. The mere fact that the P.A.P. had to reveal the terms of the merger proposals bit by bit showed that they were afraid that their merger proposals would not be acceptable to the people.. They already realised then that they had to hide their shameful deal from the eyes of the people - always talking of nationals and citizenship!

May I be permitted to refer to what the Minister for Finance said? I refer, Sir, to the Official Report of the 10th of July, at page 39, [Vol. 19, No. 2, col. 195] the last paragraph. He said:

`Sir, the truth of the matter is that Singapore citizens retain all the rights that they now possess.'

Quite right, Sir.

`In addition, they acquire new rights as nationals of the new Federation.'

What are the new rights of the nationals? As far as we know, Sir, they have the right to possess a passport; they have the right to being equal before the courts. But these, Sir, are rights which we possess in Singapore at the present moment. So what are those new special rights which the Minister for Finance talked about? Any person in a democratic society is equal in a court of law. Why must they be nationals before they can be equal in a court of law? In Singapore, we have our Singapore passports. Does it make any difference whether we get our passports from Kuala Lumpur or from Singapore? But the one thing which the Minister for Finance has not dared to say is this: by becoming nationals, Singapore citizens will have the right to be called up for military service. Now this is an obligation and a duty and also a right in a way. But if you want a man to fight for a country, make sure that he gets all the rights and privileges of that country. Do not treat him as a second-class citizen and ask him to fight for that country. This is a sell-out of the P.A.P. They talk of merger. Yet after merger, the Singapore citizen who becomes a Federal national or a Malaysian national has to go into the Federation as an alien and will be treated like an alien because he cannot have all the rights and privileges of a Federal citizen. How can you call this "merger" under those circumstances? Let me go further down the same paragraph. He said:

`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.'

And somewhere a few lines from the bottom of the page, he says:

`He loses none of these rights after merger.'

I was very interested to read about the comparison of the pros and cons of the P.A.P. type of merger. He says, "He loses none of these rights after merger." I challenge that statement. Let us go back to the fifth line of the paragraph:

`He has a right of franchise, that is, he has a right to choose who shall govern Singapore.'

Very right, Sir - "He has a right to choose who shall govern Singapore." But let us ask him what sort of Government will he choose? Will he choose a Government that has the powers that we have at the present moment? Is that not something that will be lost? At the present moment, Sir, however weak we may be, however limited our powers, Singapore still has three-sevenths of the power in the Internal Security Council. But let us see what happens when we go into the Central Parliament. Let us see what happens when we have this humbug of a merger. We will get fifteen seats in an enlarged Parliament of say 150 seats. The proportion of power that Singapore will get will be 15 upon 150. What is that? That is one-tenth. From three-sevenths of the power that we can get in our own Government, we are going to get only one-tenth of the power, is that not a reduction? Is that not something lost? I do not have to say anything about the 25 per cent of the revenue which Singapore will lose to the Central Government. At the present moment, Sir, we control every cent of our own money in Singapore. After this humbug of a merger, 25 per cent of the revenue from Singapore will be controlled by the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur. Is that not a loss?

Sir, whenever we say "second-class citizen", they say it is not true. They say that some legal opinion has been given saying that there is no such thing as a second-class citizen. Second-class citizenship, Sir, is something which you feel, something which you know ---

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Old tune.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education does not like to hear it because he has already sold out the rights of Singapore. We have already told him repeatedly, but he does not like to hear it I ask him to go out into the streets and coffee-shops. Everybody will be able to tell him something which he does not understand himself, that by encouraging this type of merger, they are going to turn Singapore citizens into second-class citizens. They asked, "How can this be so?" I have already indicated a little while back that our powers in our own Government will be reduced. The citizens will not be able to elect a Government that will have full powers to deal with our own affairs in Singapore. As regards internal security, at the present moment, we still have three-sevenths of the power, whereas once we go into the Central Parliament we get only one-tenth. Money? - one-quarter gone. But what is more important, Sir - anybody will be able to see it straightaway - is that at the present moment, Singapore will be sending only fifteen representatives to the Central Parliament. We have 624,000 citizens in Singapore. Let us do a little bit of arithmetic, Sir. Divide 624,000 by 15, and you will find that it works out to somewhere in the region of 41,000 citizens. In other words, 41,000 Singapore citizens will be electing one representative to the Central Parliament. Let us look at the Central Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. At the present moment, they have 104 seats, and their total electorate is somewhere in the region of 2.3 million. I am not sure of the figure, Sir, but it is approximately that. If you do a little bit of arithmetic and divide this 2.3 million citizens by 104, you will find that you get a figure of 21,000 or 22,000. In other words, 22,000 citizens in the Federation will be able to elect one representative to the Central Parliament. In the case of Singapore, 41,000 citizens can elect only one representative to the Central Parliament. Any three-year old child will be able to tell our Government Ministers that that means our citizenship value is nearly half the citizenship value of the Federation citizens. If you add on the rural weight-age, you will find that in many cases the value of the Singapore citizenship is only a quarter of the value of the Federation citizenship in certain areas in the Federation. So this second-class citizenship is clear. It is easily demonstrated and anybody with a little bit of feeling and a little bit of intelligence will be able to see straightaway ---

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Have you any?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But it looks as if such intelligence is not to be found in our Minister for Education.

Let me refer again to the same transcript, page 43 [Vol. 19, No. 2, cols. 201-2], also in a speech by the Minister for Finance. It is in the third paragraph. He was asking how would the Singapore citizen be better off if we had automatic conversion, and he said he could only see advantages 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.'

Sir, he says these advantages are not of fundamental importance. You see, Sir, how the Minister for Finance in his prepared speech talked about this citizenship right being not fundamental. He thinks it is of no importance whatsoever. He belittles the basic fundamental right in any parliamentary democracy. If we are to rely on the one man one vote system, the only way to make sure that you have your voice heard is to see that you have the voting right. If you do not have the voting right, your voice is not heard, and you will not be able to influence the Government or pressure the Government to make any new change you consider necessary. And here you see, Sir, the Minister for Finance saying that these are not important things. These are the basic and fundamental things. If you have merger, Sir, it is a case of merger of the peoples and of all the peoples coming together and having a common political life. The citizens of Singapore should have the right to go to the Federation to influence the Federation citizens, and vice versa, so that the Central Parliament will be able to pursue a policy which will be acceptable to the peoples of both the territories. It is only then, Sir, that you can change the Government or change the Ministers who do not happen to agree with your views at periodic intervals. There is no other way, Sir, and yet our Minister for Finance says this is unimportant. I know, for example, the Minister for Finance stays in Cairnhill. At the present moment, he is the Member for Kreta Ayer. That is very far away, Sir, If he subscribes to this policy of his, it amounts to this, that by staying in Cairnhill he will not be able to go to Kreta Ayer to stand for election, and if he wants to go to Kreta Ayer to stand for election, then he will have to go to Kreta Ayer and stay there for 10 years. Or our Deputy Prime Minister, who stays in Tanglin, will not be able to go to Rochore to stand for election ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: But I have.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is the whole trouble. You have and yet you want to deny these rights ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already remarked in the past that the Member for Queenstown loses his temper so easily; he forgets he is in this Chamber. The Speaker is trying to keep this Assembly as august as possible.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: He cannot behave himself.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: So, Sir, these are very important rights which the citizens of Singapore must have. These are not unimportant trivialities as the Minister for Finance makes them out to be. On them depend all the basic and fundamental rights that operate in a parliamentary democracy.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Why do you not go to Malacca?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Then, Sir, may I refer you to page 40? I want to refer to paragraph 2 [col. 196], Sir. The Minister for Finance was talking about equality before the law, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and all that, and then in the second paragraph:

"`Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion.'"

I want to stress, Sir, on the words, "Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution". Therefore, Sir, what we have at the present moment can easily be changed if the Central Parliament by a motion change the constitution. As you may know, Sir, not so very long ago, they had amendments in the Federal Constitution. In fact, they have already had three changes in the Federal Constitution in the short period of a few years. So what guarantee do we have that there will be no more changes again?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Go and join the Federation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is the point, Sir. He says, "Go and join the Federation.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have pulled up the Deputy Prime Minister once before. I would suggest that he try not to interject, because I might remind him that the Speaker or the Chairman, whoever takes the Chair, relies to a great extent on the Leader of the House to keep order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: So, Sir, unless we have this proportional representation in order to have our influence felt in the Central Parliament, unless we have the possibility of going into the Federation and influencing the voters or to stand for election inside the Federation so that we can get our voice heard inside the Federation, we will not be able to exert any pressure at all on the Government that may want to change the Constitution. It is simple logic, Sir, and I hope the Minister for Finance will be able to understand all this.

Sir, a lot of play has been made about our letter to the Tunku and it is a pity the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance are not here. They have all the time chided us to reveal the contents of, our letter to the Tunku. We had not, wanted to reveal the letter, Sir, not just to please them. No, it is not our intention to make political capital out of the letter which we sent to the Tunku. But very unfortunately for the Ministers opposite, they did not know the actual contents, and because they did not know, they sought deliberately to misinterpret and distort the contents of our letter that, we sent to the Tunku. By so doing, they had hoped to convince their own Backbenches that our letter to the Tunku was to ask for special terms on merger, and because we had refused to divulge what is in that letter, therefore, that letter meant that the Tunku had refused us.

You will notice, Sir, that every time they talked about our letter, they linked it up with the letter which the Member for Anson wrote to the Tunku, and by so doing they had hoped that they could confuse their own supporters who - I believe there are some who are maybe dissatisfied with the ways of their leaders. As I say, Sir, it is not our intention to make political capital out of our exchange of letters, unlike the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the P.A.P. who will stoop to almost anything. May I at this stage, Sir, say that when our Secretary-General wrote to the Tunku, he wrote with the full approval of the Central Executive Committee. It is a pity their Special Branch did not know about this. Because our telephones are, all tapped and their Special Branch spies follow us around all the time. I am sure they must turn to MI5 now, if their Special Branch does not prove to be good enough. Anyway, whatever we do in the Barisan Sosialis we do collectively, unlike some of the P.A.P. Ministers who, as far as I remember, used to make speeches and those speeches then became policies of the Government. That was a bit too much for us to stomach at that time and because of that we ultimately had to leave the P.A.P.

As I say, Sir, since the P.A.P. have been trying to make political capital out of our letter to the Tunku and since they have been trying to confuse and mislead the people, I think it is appropriate that we now expose their lies and innuendoes concerning our letter which had at one time caused a sensation in the local Press. The P.A.P. at first fabricated the falsehood about our Secretary-General having gone to hand a letter personally to the Tunku, until we exposed the falsehood. Of course, after we had exposed the falsehood, they changed their line and now say that it is our Assistant Secretary-General. That is quite true as we pointed out at that time. Sir, since there has been so much talk about our letter, let me read out the contents of the letter which our Secretary-General wrote to the Tunku. Before doing that, may I quote the Official Transcript of the 9th of July, 1962, at page 27 [Vol. 19, No. 1, col. 39]; the Prime Minister was talking about the Member for Anson having tried to write to the Tunku, and then he added:

'And even the Communist-controlled Barisan Sosialis, through their open front Secretary-General, Mr Lim Ching Siong, in April, a few months ago, sent a letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman by the personal hand of the Assistant Secretary-General. What the letter contains presumably is only known to the Secretary-General and the Tunku. But everybody can guess what this gesture of peace-making was aimed at. However, the very fact that neither the letter nor the response of the Tunku to the letter has ever been made public ---'

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Even to the Chairman.

The Prime Minister: --- probably even to the Chairman of the Party, is in itself significant.'

I can assure you, Sir, this letter is somewhere in the middle of my April-May file. So the original copy of the letter has been with me from the very first day. It is not that. I do not know about it.

May I again refer you to page 39 [col. 58], Sir, it is in the third paragraph:

'Dr Goh Keng Swee: I hope the Member for Queenstown will come to the point quickly. Now, his Secretary-General has written a letter to the Tunku ---'.

And then you pulled him up on a point of order. I will now read you the letter which we sent to the Tunku. It is dated 27th March, 1962:

27th March 1962 Singapore. Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, Prime Minister, The Federation of Malaya, Federation House, Singapore.

Dear Tunku,

We gladly welcome your desire to see the creation of one country, sharing a common feeling, outlook and destiny. We wish to assure you that in this desire for national unity, we are completely with you.

Like you, we also want to see that nothing will come about that may cause any disruption to the present harmony existing among the people of our country.

We feel that much of the unhappy feelings about Singapore have arisen from a lack of opportunities for apparently divergent views to be adequately discussed so that a happy and lasting solution could be obtained for the benefit of all our people.

And we feel that a free and frank exchange of views and discussion between us can contribute a great deal towards national unity.

It is with this in mind that we take this opportunity of your visit to Singapore to write to you, hoping you will be able to grant us an opportunity to meet you.

Should you be unable to see us at this juncture, we would be glad to welcome any other occasion convenient to you at any future date.

With our best regards to you, I remain, Yours sincerely, Sgd. LIM CHIN SIONG Secretary-General.'

Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows the rules. After a document is read, it should be tabled. Perhaps the hon. Member will table the document. Copies could be taken from the original document which could then be handed back.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: This is not the original, Sir; this is only a copy of it. The original was sent to the Tunku.

So, you see, Sir, it is a simple letter with no asking for special terms, which they have misconstrued. We never asked for anything special. We merely asked for an interview in order that we might the better be able to present the Tunku with the other side of the picture in Singapore. We realised that the P.A.P. had given the Tunku a distorted version of what was happening in Singapore, and we felt it our duty to present to the Tunku the proper side of the picture. Then, it would be for the Tunku to decide, because, as you can know by now, Sir, the P.A.P. are the greatest of distortionists and fabricators. It is only right and proper that we in the Opposition, who have had our views shut off from the radio, from Rediffusion and from the Press, be given an opportunity to tell the Tunku exactly what was happening. To complete the record, let me read to you the reply which he gave us. It is a copy of the letter which he sent to us. It is headed:

`Perdana Menteri, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Kuala Lumpur, Rumah Persekutuan Singapore 27th March 1962.'

And it reads:

`Dear Mr Lim,

Thank you for your letter and for your assurance that you are completely at one with me in the desire for national unity and preservation of the present harmony existing between the people of Malaya.

I note your request for an opportunity to have a free and frank exchange of views. Unfortunately, however, I am unable to meet you during this visit to Singapore as I have two engagements in Kedah which necessitate my leaving Singapore early tomorrow morning.

I will, however, be pleased to meet you and other leaders of the Barisan Sosialis at some future date, and I will let you know when this can be arranged.

Thank you for your kind regards,

I am, Yours sincerely. Sgd. PRIME MINISTER FEDERATION OF MALAYA.'

Sir, this is the exchange of letters which caused such a hullabaloo in Singapore at that time. Everybody was wondering what was happening. The P.A.P. tried to make great political capital out of it. We allowed them to, in order to give them enough rope to hang themselves. As expected, they hanged themselves, because they did not know what was in the letter. Even here in this House, they have been trying to put all sorts of meanings and interpretations into our letters. Now that I have read those letters to you, you will see that what they sought to read into our letters has no foundation of truth.

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

4.35 p.m.

It is a completely polite letter from the Tunku, with a promise to see us later; but so much was read into the exchange of letters, Sir, that we had to issue a statement on the 6th of April. This is what we said. It is only a very ---

Mr David Marshall: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do enquire whether these fascinating details are in any way pertinent to the motion before the Rouse. I would urge, Sir, if I may, that the Member for Queenstown remember that we are subject to a "guillotine".

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the Member for Queenstown is in order to quote the letters exchanged between the Barisan Sosialis and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, while discussing the question before this House, it is perfectly legitimate to reveal the information, and so far the Member is completely in order. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, Sir, concerning this letter, there is not very much left - only a small hit. About our statement which we issued on the 6th of April, we were commenting on the attack on us by the P.A.P. in their political statements issued to the Press.

`We are firmly opposed to any policy based on racial discrimination, yet we who are opposed to the present proposals based on racial discrimination, are accused of being racialists, while the P.A.P. leaders, who are trying to impose this policy based on racial prejudices on the people, call themselves non-racialists. How twisted can the P.A.P. logic become? It was because of our concern for the extremely dangerous communal drift and to present the true feelings of the people of Singapore to the Tunku that we had instructed the Secretary-General of our Party, Mr Lim Ching Siong, to write to the Tunku with a view to seeking a way to halt the present deterioration. We have not, as the P.A.P. has alleged, pledged our support for the P.A.P.'s White Paper merger proposals that is their unfortunate lie, Sir - or for the present Malaysia plan. We have been consistently against these proposals, and our stand remains the same. Hence our present campaign to expose the P.A.P. sell out'.

One more paragraph, Sir, a short one:

'The P.A.P. has also spread the falsehood that our Secretary-General had gone to Cuscaden Road to see the Tunku without an appointment. The truth is that the letter to the Tunku was delivered by hand by our Assistant Secretary-General of the Party, Dr Poh Soo Kai, who handed the letter to the Tunku's Press Secretary at Federation House in Cuscaden Road,'

Sir, that is the episode of the exchange of letters which has caused so much commotion and which has given the P.A.P. such a headache. They twisted our stand this way and that way, and now it has been shown very clearly that the P.A.P. - who all the time were in the dark - had been trying to confuse and mislead the people.

Let me tell the P.A.P. this: even if the Federal politicians should not grant us equality, that does not mean that we should not fight for equality. The Prime Minister has obligations and duties, as the Prime Minister of Singapore, to fight for the rights of Singapore, and I ---

The Prime Minister: On a point of information.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Member will give way. The Member does not give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will tell him, if he calls himself the Prime Minister of Singapore, let him work for the interests of Singapore. If he wants to fight for the interests of the Federation, let him go to the Federation and leave Tanjong Pagar.

Sir, what are the choices before us? The P.A.P. White Paper, as we have said, is a phoney merger, with phoney autonomy in education and labour. I have already explained to you about second-class citizenship. I have already touched on the fact that we have not got proportional representation, and because if the unequal and unjust terms, the proposed merger will lead not to national unity but to national disunity. In fact, it will lead to a widening of communal differences which I do not wish to touch on. It will not lead to unification of the people and will not give independence to Singapore. The slogan "Independence through merger" is the humbug which the P.A.P. have been trying to sell to the people of Singapore. There is no independence.

Let us see the second alternative. It is couched in very vague terms. It is open to too many interpretations and can mean whatever the P.A.P. distortionists want it to mean. There is no White Paper on it and, in effect, the people are asked to choose something which is not only vague but also something which they know hardly anything about. It amounts to giving the P.A.P. a blank cheque. Who wants to give the P.A.P. a blank cheque? As it is, the P.A.P. are untrustworthy enough and nobody has any confidence in them. Therefore, it is very difficult for the voter to decide on it and to vote for it.

About the third alternative, Sir, I have already indicated that it is another unknown quantity, and it is not a genuine choice which is being posed to the people. Now, what we want is a genuine choice. You must give a choice which is acceptable to the people - something which they can choose. The fact that the voter is not allowed to say "No" is proof enough, Sir, that the P.A.P. know that the choices that they are offering to the people are not acceptable to the vast majority. There is no justification whatsoever for them to say that the people cannot say "No".

Sir, we ask that we in Singapore be allowed to have a genuine and honest choice of the type of merger that the people want. As has been suggested by the Member for Cairnhill, let all the Parties go and explain to the people their respective stands on merger, on the questions which will be posed in the referendum. Let the Government admit that we have a right to ask another question to be proposed to the people. It is our duty to convince the people as to the most suitable form of merger for Singapore. It is simple, it is fair, and at least, under the circumstances since they have insisted on the mode and manner - there will be less complaints. At the present moment, the P.A.P. have the Radio, Rediffusion, and the Press all under their control. I do not think they need worry as to what the Opposition Parties will do. They do not have to worry about the Opposition Parties telling the people what they are supposed to know. What the Opposition Parties can do, I should say, the P.A.P., with all the facilities at their command, should be able to do much better. Therefore, they need have no fear of allowing a fourth choice to be offered to the people. Let them accept our amendment to put a fourth alternative. Let them not try to railroad merger with this humbug of their three choices.

Sir, our stand is well known. It has been debated in this Assembly and the people, in spite of the P.A.P. distortion, know that we stand for automatic conversion and for proportional representation. I want to remind the S.P.A. once again of their statement that they want a genuine choice to be posed to the people. Now is the time for the S.P.A. to support our amendment. Let all the possible alternatives acceptable to the people of Singapore be posed to them for their choosing. Then let the people decide. Only then will the definition of "referendum" as given by the Prime Minister, that it is a process to ascertain the views of the majority of the people of Singapore, hold true. Remember it is to ascertain the views of the people of Singapore, not the views of the P.A.P.

4.49 p.m.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis. Let me now speak on it. Before I speak on the main subject, I should like to touch on the subject of the untrustworthiness of the Prime Minister. His words are usually not trustworthy.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member for Stamford has already spoken on the main motion. She has indicated that she is now going to speak on the amendment, and any irrelevancies on her part will be ruled completely out of order. So, will the Member please come back to the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis?

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I can guarantee that what I wish to speak on is related to our amendment. Because the Prime Minister has told us previously that what we wanted he could give us. This remark was quoted by the Member for Cairnhill yesterday. I do not wish to speak on it again. The amendment by the Barisan Sosialis is just to see whether the Prime Minister can accede to it, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I frankly tell this House that we Barisan Sosialis strongly oppose the phoney merger proposals as suggested by the P.A.P. The White Paper on merger is not a genuine merger. To expose this phoney merger is not only the responsibility of the people but also that of the Barisan Sosialis.

Tunku Abdul Rahman has said that the negotiations started by the P.A.P. are not for a merger but for a closer relationship.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. In the November debate last year I tabled an exchange of letters between myself and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, in which he said:

'May I refer to your letter of the 11th November, 1961, regarding the representation in the new Federation Parliament which is contained in paragraph 15 of the memorandum forming the basic proposals for merger of Singapore.'

I do not know whether the Member for Stamford has read this document or has had it translated to her. "Merger" is what is referred to by the Tunku in his letter in the official exchange of letters.

Mr David Marshall: I might want to add something to that point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Chair requires the assistance of any Member, then it will call on that Member. I think the Chair is completely competent to carry on in this Assembly. Miss Fung Yin Ching. [Interruption] Is it a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: It is, Sir, I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that there is other information on that point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member for Anson has spoken on the main motion and he will have an Opportunity to speak on the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson which we are debating now. He can raise this matter later, as a matter of information or elucidation. He can bring up his point then. Miss Fung Yin Ching.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what the Prime Minister has said just now seems to me as if he wants to prove that the P.A.P. White Paper on merger is a genuine merger. But yesterday the Member for Cairnhill said that the proposal in the White Paper is not a real merger. It is only half merger. I do not know what ideas the Prime Minister has on this aspect of the matter.

Mr Rajah: We are not debating the motion, we are now on the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have ruled, before the Member for Stamford started to speak, that she can speak on the amendment moved by the Member for Thomson. Miss Fung Yin Ching.

Miss Fung Yin Ching: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the stand of the Barisan Sosialis is that the Government should not run away from its responsibilities, but the circumstances prevailing today are different. If they insist on going on, they will have no way out. The provisions in the National Referendum Bill have been debated in this House and the Bill has been passed. We find it necessary to bring up this amendment now. I want to quote from the Prime Minister's words to prove that our amendment is reasonable. It represents our stand on merger. Our Chairman has clearly stated it. I want to quote some speeches by the Prime Minister as recorded in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 8th of July. It was reported in the newspaper that at a Press conference broadcast over Radio Singapore, when the Tunku was in Singapore, The Prime Minister of Singapore was asked, if he had his way, whether he would have a national referendum. What was his view on it, a Press reporter asked him. For the sake of the official record of this House and not to misquote him, I would like to read all that the Prime Minister said. He is reported to have said, "I have said in the past what I thought about this. Let me repeat it. In the Legislative Assembly we have secured enough power and rights. I am not worried about the proposed merger, because my view is that the Communists know that the crux of the problem is here. The Communists want to spread hatred and disorder among the people, so that they can then do what they like. I feel very sorry about this. I cannot agree with the Tunku. I believe we know more of the hopes and aspirations of the Singapore Chinese. We want to give them a choice. If they honestly think that the Penang or Malacca type of merger, as suggested by the Barisan, is what they like, or the Johore type, as suggested by the Member for Hong Lim, or ---"

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is nearly time for the tea-break. I do not know how all these speeches are relevant to the amendment by the Member for Thomson. I suspend this sitting until half-past five. Order.

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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

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 Speaker: I would suggest to the Government Whip and the Opposition Whips, if there are Opposition Whips, that they should see to it, as part of their duties, that the business of this Assembly is not impeded because of a lack of a quorum.